Comment by ThrowawayR2 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ThrowawayR2 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> Are you practicing crimethink?

-A few hundred years ago, being an atheist was "crimethink", as was religious tolerance towards Jews, Muslims, and so forth.

-A few hundred years ago, questioning the divine right of kings to rule was "crimethink".

-In the early 1600s, Galileo stood trial and was condemned for the "crimethink" of saying the Earth moved around the Sun, in contradiction to the teachings of the Church.

-As little as 200 years ago, advocating racial equality was "crimethink", as was equal rights for women.

-As little as 60 years ago, in the McCarthy era, being a leftist or socialist was "crimethink" and people lost their jobs and/or were jailed because of it.

I do want diversity of opinion because I believe in the values of the Enlightenment, which include the ability to openly voice dissent without fear of reprisal and I have the strength of character to listen to the beliefs of others without feeling threatened; in short, I want diversity of opinion because I am a liberal.

You say you want diversity of opinion because you are a "liberal" but mainstream liberalism has next to nothing to do with classical liberalism. Your average urban, coastal "liberal" adheres to their orthodoxies with about the level openness to other opinions as a stereotypical religious zealot.

Without context what you are saying is meaningless. Sure, "liberals" seem closed minded in not accepting racism, bigotry or hate speech but in accepting people for who they are, it's hard to say their opinions are stereotypical at all... I mean the democrats/liberals/progressives agree to disagree more often than not.

> racism, bigotry or hate speech

The problem is that these words have become nearly meaningless from vast overuse.

> The problem is that these words have become nearly meaningless from vast overuse

i do think it's sometimes thrown around unfairly.

however, from the other direction the criteria for such is nearly impossible. for some, racism 'doesn't exist anymore' and short of explicitly saying 'i am a legit racist for realz' everything can be explained away. be it 'race realism', stat framing or a variety of other things.

part of this is the issue of what it means 'to be a racist'. some people would (for example) happily endorse laws that would disproportionately burden hispanic americans and harass hispanics of any sort, but claim they're 'not racist' because they 'don't care about color'.

basically this dialectic allows real world racist activity through deferring the assessment of racism to a fundamentally unknowable and unprovable internal state.

how so? another comment without context.

A perfect example would be the immigration debate. I believe if you are in this country ilegally you should be deported. Apparantly, according to many many liberals, that makes me a "racist."

Of course race has nothing to do with it, I couldn't care less what color you are , if you're here illegally you need to be deported. And it's not just me, but I constantly see others who have the same beliefs getting accused of being racist.

And that's just one example. I've seen people be accused of being sexist just because they didn't like Hilary Clinton. It was actually really common for liberals to accuse opponents of Clinton of being sexist regardless of the total absence of any evidence of actual sexism.

> I believe if you are in this country ilegally you should be deported. Apparantly, according to many many liberals, that makes me a "racist."

sometimes people present reductive versions of an argument and drop relevant contextual information and then complain that others respond unfairly. that said, favoring deportation for unlawful entry - wholly absent of any context or further data - doesn't contain much information to assert 'racist'.

however, there are serious 'racial implications' of various immigration policies, such as the 'papers please' arizona law, which says officers can harass people simply by being 'suspicious that the individual is an illegal immigrant'. if a person's status is unknown, the means by which such suspicion is derived would seem to principally lie within racial profiling and similar tactics. among other problems, this profiling creates an unreasonable burden on american citizens that are hispanic (particularly those of mestizo heritage).

> I constantly see others who have the same beliefs getting accused of being racist

Probably because of the massive amount of racist rhetoric used in support of that position. It's not an inherently racist position, but when such a large portion of arguments in favor of the position use racist rhetoric it's hard to avoid being lumped in with those arguments.

Lumping totally dis-similar arguments together is just intellectually lazy, which is most of my problem with the use of words like "racist, sexist, etc." They have valid applications, but are often used to circumvent rational debate.

Most people are intellectually lazy. Better get used to it. If you want your arguments to be consistently distinguished from the racist ones you will have to put in more effort to make them seem more distinct.

You don't even know what my arguments would be!

And to add onto your point there's a lot of nuance in terms of what it means to be against illegal immigration. Some people define it very harshly (toss out everyone that's an immigrant), some people define it as providing avenues for hard-working undocumented immigrants to become US citizens even if they are illegal.

So when you come out against illegal immigration, your stance can run the gamut of not racist at all to incredibly racist. It just turns out that most of the time the statistics simply don't line up for illegal immigrants committing more crime, stealing jobs and so forth. Which then makes the argument not about fact, but about feeling. Which then tends to be more inclined towards racism.

All right, here's some context. People are classified as "racist" for believing that the culture that came out of northern Europe is not inherently oppressive. (Source: Watching what's happened on university campuses for the last couple of years. I can't point you to a specific documentation of a specific event at the moment.)

When that's the definition of "racist", then racism is indeed "nearly meaningless" - it's become such a broad term that it no longer means anything. To paraphrase The Incredibles: "When everything fits the definition... then nothing does."

> Watching what's happened on university campuses for the last couple of years

Have you been on a university campus recently?

Contrary to what some reactionary conservatives seem to think, they are not generally oppressive places with no tolerance for conservative thought.

Yes, occasionally 19 year olds say and do some silly things. That's kind of what being young and having your first taste of adulthood is supposed to be about. And if you only consume media that highlights those silly things and never actually visit a university and talk to young people, yeah, you can easily get a very negative view of what universities and academic culture are like.

> People are classified as "racist" for believing that the culture that came out of northern Europe is not inherently oppressive.

Well, it is inherently oppressive, as is just about every other traditional culture, and citizens have to be constantly vigilant about to make sure that oppressive nature is held at bay as much as possible. Can there really be any doubt about this? Consider, among many other facts, the fact that Alabama just very nearly elected to the US Senate a man who thinks the US was better under slavery and that the constitutional amendments granting women and blacks the right to vote should be revoked. If that's not enough to convince you that racism is a serious problem I don't know what would be.

>Contrary to what some reactionary conservatives seem to think, they are not generally oppressive places with no tolerance for conservative thought.

It varies from university to university. Most universities don't experience anything like the authoritarian-left chaos at Evergreen [1], but you can find student organizations at universities all over America who hold these far-left beliefs. We had no scandals like this at my east coast university, but I'd estimate at least 10-20% of the student population holds extreme beliefs of this nature. You could see inklings of it on campus in the form of posters and group demonstrations and events. I have no statistics about the political leanings of universities in general, but if even 10 big universities have these issues (and it's definitely more than 10), then it's worth discussing.

At my university, even though it didn't seem to lean that much to the left, holding conservative views was definitely a stigma. Conservative students were routinely mocked and ostracized. And this isn't some self-pity, as I consider myself to have been and to be pretty left-wing on most social and economic issues. I just saw what people on the opposite side had to deal with.

>Consider, among many other facts, the fact that Alabama just very nearly elected to the US Senate a man who thinks the US was better under slavery and that the constitutional amendments granting women and blacks the right to vote should be revoked. If that's not enough to convince you that racism is a serious problem I don't know what would be.

Pointing to proof of a problem isn't proof that all opponents of that problem are justified. The position of many university campus students, and some professors, is not merely that racism is still a serious problem in the US but that non-minority groups have effectively been born with some innate sin which they must seek constant penance for due to historical power dynamics. Connected to this is a set of very tribalistic and insular beliefs not unlike what you see in alt-right communities. It's anti-intellectual and it's encouraging college students to view the world in a very narrow way. Oppression of minority groups was and is a dire issue, but it's important not to overcorrect.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/01/opinion/when-the-left-tur...

Saying we've overcorrected on racism is like saying we've overcorrected on feminism. If 2017 has shown us anything, its that there are a lot of skeletons hidden in many closets.

There's extremist in both groups that fight for overcorrection but lets not confuse that with an actual overcorrection of any kind.

There is no "we", just individuals and groups. Some individuals and groups do hold positions which have overcorrected for racism and, yes, even sexism. A big problem that is still in need of much correcting can still be overcorrected for.

> Consider, among many other facts, the fact that Alabama just very nearly elected .....

ANNND how does that have anything to do with "northern eropean" culture being inherently, automatically oppressive?

> If that's not enough to convince you that racism is a serious problem

Yes, racism is a serious problem. And how does that have anything to do with what the person you are responding to just said?

"Yes, occasionally 19 year olds say and do some silly things. That's kind of what being young and having your first taste of adulthood is supposed to be about."

My god. I really wish more people would point this out. The hysteria about University politics is such a bore now.

If that's inherently oppressive then it's not much of a leap to say that disagreement, categorization and even existence is inherently oppressive. Which makes oppression a good thing.

> Which makes oppression a good thing

does it? waxing a bit philosophical here: is existence really any better than non-existence? it's not like anyone has experienced both. :P

The "culture that came out of northern Europe" is a meaningless term.

I find a lot of US faux-'liberals' to be quite bigoted in terms of acting like measures against against illegal immigration from Mexico somehow are racist - implying all Mexicans are illegal immigrants. Similarly the same people speak as if all black people are working class, all white people are middle class, etc., which is also bigoted.

I can't agree with this at all because it doesn't reflect reality, in fact, is a projection of how conservatives "feel" so they can continue to ignore reality. Immigration isn't a black and white issue. Maybe if you feel that what liberals are implying has some merit of truth to upset you, then you would look at how to change those signals rather than pretend they're not there.

>Without context what you are saying is meaningless.

For example, it's beyond the pale to have a conversation about how demographics matter and that social science tells us that diversity is probably a net loss: http://archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/...

It reminds me of people who outright deny climate change.

> that social science tells us that diversity is probably a net loss:

The author of that study doesn't come to that conclusion: https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/robert-putnam-say...

Thanks for the link.

>his “extensive research and experience confirm the substantial benefits of diversity, including racial and ethnic diversity, to our society.”

The benefit of diversity is diversity?

It seems like the disadvantages of diversity are observed and tangible, while the potential upsides of diversity aren't defined or proven.

We need different words (or perhaps phrases) for "mainstream (US) liberalism" and "classical liberalism". The problem is that "liberalism", without modifiers, used to mean "classical liberalism", and now most often means "mainstream liberalism". This leads to confusion (sometimes deliberate, as mainstream liberals try to wrap themselves in the mantle of respectability that classical liberalism earned).

Yes, and your average Bayesian reasoner also "adheres to their orthodoxy" with little "openness to other opinions". Opinions don't move Bayesians. Opinions shouldn't move Bayesians. Stop demanding that other people shift their priors towards yours and show evidence.

I've heard all the alt-right arguments, long before the term alt-right made it into contemporary vernacular, and concluded that they are meritless ideas coming from idiots who lack the ability of genuine critical thought. They can say whatever they want, I don't really care, but I reserve the right to mock them and discriminate against them for being dangerous idiots.

Being open to new and alternative thoughts is not the same as allowing unrestricted hate from racist triggered cowards. If I deem an idea as non-constructive or even destructive I will discard it. Alt-right ideas and ideologies are dead, a hangover from times past. What we are experiencing is the final purge, the virus is rearing up again like a cold sore and the collective immune system of society will stamp it out for good. This is a necessary yet uncomfortable inevitability which is why I'm perfectly ok with it.

> I've heard all the alt-right arguments, long before the term alt-right made it into contemporary vernacular, and concluded that they are meritless ideas coming from idiots who lack the ability of genuine critical thought.

All more the reason to shine a light on these ideas. They won't hold under scrutiny. Blind obedience is not a reasonable expectation of people. We need to understand how our civilization got to where it is while others failed. There really is no such thing as "final purge". If purging becomes part of our ideology there will always be another enemy to deal with and the division will never end.

> All more the reason to shine a light on these ideas. They won't hold under scrutiny.

That assumes people are rational.

What we know is, people are more likely to believe things they have heard before (mere exposure effect), and are more likely to believe things their peers believe (bandwagon effect).

I believe in free speech. As in, the government must not censor peoples speech. But we're crazy to think bad ideas will go away just because we expose them, or scrutinize them with arguments.

When you have an idea that is dangerous and perceived as fringe, you must individually choose not to give that idea more exposure. The risk is you normalize the idea for a segment of your audience.

When the idea is dangerous and breaking into the mainstream, you have no choice but to confront it. But you can't do so with arguments alone. You need to blend logical arguments with emotional appeals, because 1. that's how humans work and 2. the other side is doing it and you are at a disadvantage if you don't. Remember that the art of rhetoric originally encompassed 3 areas: Logos (logic) Pathos (feeling) and ethos (credibility).

>If purging becomes part of our ideology there will always be another enemy to deal with and the division will never end.

This is a natural process of any organically evolving system. It keeps what helps it and expels what doesn't.

I agree there will never be an end to problems and division. The nature of them will simply change.

Regarding shining light on the ideas... this is pointless. First they come from an emotional place so discussing them with logic won't work. Second I could argue with flat-earthers all day but what's the point.

> This is a natural process of any organically evolving system. It keeps what helps it and expels what doesn't.

I don't think it is natural, I think its a sickness. The goal isn't to improve things the goal is to have an enemy to destroy. There is no point where behaviour of the un-purged will be acceptable enough.

> Regarding shining light on the ideas... this is pointless

So you understand the arguments, learned that it doesn't hold water and are therefore in a position to speak intelligently on the issue but you don't want others to go through the same process? That doesn't make sense to me and leaves the biggest question un-asked which is who gets to decide what can or cant be discussed?

I never said I don't want others to go through the same process. Just don't expect anything from me. We all live in our own realities and I'm lucky to be privileged enough to be able to ignore hardcore Nazis. Life is too short to waste energy on debating them. I suspect many feel this way.

If it comes to a head and I find that I suddenly can't avoid them anymore I know where I stand and will act accordingly. If you spend you whole life arguing with everyone you disagree with on important issues no matter how ridiculous their counter-arguments are then it is likely you will carry the weight of the world on your shoulder and become terribly depressed. I've seen this happen too many times to count so I checked out and focused more energy on things that bring positive energy to me and the world. If that's a problem to you, that's your problem not mine, and you'll have to deal with it.

This conversation on the other hand is fine because valid questions were raised and points were made without judgement or threat of violence. I may or may not agree with you but as I said I can handle valid alternative thoughts I disagree with (which ironically is not a feature of alt-right ideology).

Those are wise words.

Everyone believes their opponents are dangerous idiots. Democracy only kind of works because people listen and tolerate each other anyway. The massive amount of political polarization you are creating is going to destroy the country.

Nitpick: Galileo was put under house arrest from the church not because of his heliocentric views, but because he publicly mocked the pope (making him "Simplicio" in Dialogue), even after Galileo was warned not to.

"The only ideas I'm afraid of letting people say are the ones that I think may be true and that I don't like." - Sam Altman

> - Sam Altman

… whose company's forum makes unpopular opinions literally fade away to nothing. Actions speak louder than words.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com