Hacker News Reader

Comment by duxup | Hacker News Reader

I've wondered the same. I feel like I've seen a subtle but very significant change in people's approach.

In the past on some corners of the internet I'd get "down voted" (whatever system the locals use, not just reddit) for anything that smelled of X, Y, or Z.

That's still the case at times BUT I've seen a lot more folks express distaste for that kind of crusade and gotten a lot more support from people when inevitably I end up sayng "No that's not what i'm saying, I'm tired of having to say that ... we can say X and not be Y".

Meanwhile the most egregious examples of the kind of calling folks out for their perceived impurity such as "you know you don't have to defend X" type comments seem to get a great deal less support now, if not outright ridicule.

View on HN

Yeah, I think I'm the same. For years I kinda awkwardly put up with it, semi-understanding the dynamic (revolutional paedophagy?), but I've got bored of it over the last couple of years. I've seen the same in people I know, and even just people I've seen interacting online. Your characterisation of "a subtle but very significant change" is apposite, imo.

People are starting - albeit unevenly and at different stages and with considerable pushback – to realise that they don't owe an account of their morality to any old person on the internet, that they can be non-racist and not have to agree with (and genuflect to) every other self-styled non-racist trying to sell some wacky opinion to them, etc.

And - what makes me most happy of all - they are doing it, at least many of them, without falling prey to the "I disagree with someone from Not Racist FC so I guess all that's left to me is to sign up to Racist FC" non sequitur.

Like people who can oppose illegal immigration but not also hate those who are seeking to immigrate.

They can. But it breaks against the trend.

Does it? The reporting on polls I've heard of sound like it has a few to many convenient assumptions baked in.

Answer that they is a limit to how much immigration is sustainable? Clearly you must think we're over that limit now.

Answer that cheating visa systems is bad? Clearly you must think the quotas are high enough as they are.

Answer that opening the floodgates would let in problematic people? Clearly you must think contrary to data! that the people currently being let in are bad (rather than that the process acts as a filter).

It's at least as complex of an issue as the new hot topic, where appropriately formulated polls can claim to find overwhelming support for either extreme position despite that (or because, really) most people seem to favor something somewhere in the middle.

Not at all. Opposition to immigration is rooted in practical matters, not “hate.” For example, loss of political control—both liberals and conservatives like immigrants who vote the way they do, and dislike immigrants who vote the opposite way: https://www.cato.org/survey-reports/e-pluribus-unum-findings..., specifically: https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/styles/pubs_2x/pub...

I’m a very obviously brown guy and happen to be an immigrant. Up until 2016 or so, most of my encounters with racism had been from homeless people. But in the last few years that’s quickly been overshadowed by white liberals getting angry that I don’t want to be part of their “rainbow coalition.” (And that has been over further overshadowed by well meaning white liberals acting really weird.) Despite living in a Trump precinct I have yet to encounter any racism from a Trump voter.

Oh no! The horrors of getting down voted. Imagine the blood bath if I said something pro social justice in this indignant thread.

That’s what this whole thing is about, +- people who legitimately deserve better mental health care than they’re getting from free speech whining. I even complain about being downvoted way more than I should, but mostly because I wish people would say why when they do downvote. It’s often informative even if I ultimately disagree. But this free speech crusade is more about being entirely free of critique because so much as bringing up any kind of justice is an affront akin to being “canceled”. Much free, such speech.

Yeah except you get banned with prejudice for wrongspeak.

Do you think you have success with that? Are people more open to social justice after being condemned left and right for trivial usage of maybe offensive expressions?

What is the situation now compared to 10 years ago for example?

If it was a big deal to me I wouldn't post.

But I am interested in the varying responses / votes over time, specifically when it comes to the topics I mentioned.

Community voting patterns are interesting.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com