Hacker News Reader

Comment by bergenty | Hacker News Reader

At a very simple level, it’s akin to not yelling bomb in a theatre since it would be faster and more efficient for everyone to evacuate in an orderly manner without being informed of the bomb. I feel like our society does require some gatekeepers and can’t be run well if it’s just vocal collectives yelling at each other.

View on HN

>I feel like our society does require some gatekeepers and can’t be run well if it’s just vocal collectives yelling at each other.

I'm glad you recognize in yourself that you can't be trusted with certain information and you need, personally, a big brother to lie to you. You do you. I'd appreciate if you didn't make the same assessment about me, and others.

Idealism is great, as an ideal. It starts to become a little delusional when you think your idealism lines up with reality.

I'm not sure I espoused any utopian view.

Reading back, I'm actually genuinely interested to know why you want a third-party 'gatekeeper' to protect you personally from certain kinds of (uncomfortable) scientific facts. I don't judge, you can make that decisions for yourself, but why do you personally want to write that blank-check to a third-party, so that they decide what scientific facts you should or shouldn't be allowed to learn? Maybe you can elaborate?

Because I’ve come to the realization that there maybe some people that have the time, drive and intelligence to look at all the facts and come to the “right” decision but in the overwhelming number of cases people don’t want to do this exercise and will rely on frameworks provided. If one isn’t provided they’ll come up with their own and there’s no guarantees any of it will work out for the good of society.

This coupled with the fact that there is currently a firehose of “information” that I doubt even people with the best of abilities and intentions can adequately grok if they’re not specifically paid for the time to think about them.

> I feel like our society does require some gatekeepers

Which should be people who broadly speaking share your political and ethical beliefs, yes?

And, if the gatekeepers are people with a different sense of morality, it is fascism and must be torn down in the name of freedom, correct?

There is something to building around a consensus on who they are roughly around the phrase “first cause no harm”

What is harm?

Physical or mental pain and anguish

So we need Big Brother to protect us from facts that will harm us.

We need the government to protect us from a lot of things that can harm us.

The next step then is the government deciding what will harm us, so we can be protected. And then you got a very nice little fascist country that runs perfectly, and the trains run on time to move all those harmful people away from where good people live. Out of sight, out of mind.

The government already decides that. That’s what laws are. Why are you speaking rhetorically?

And as time progresses, new laws are no longer common sense ("don't steal, don't murder"), but become increasingly cumbersome, while still acceptable ("don't drive a vehicle unless we license you for vehicle use") and ultimately problematic ("You can't own sulphuric acid"). Before too long, laws become criminal, and those must not be obeyed ("You have to believe this or that, or at least shut up about what you really think, because doing otherwise may hurt people").

Too many laws make everyone a criminal, for eventually, everyday, innocent behaviour becomes criminalised.

When you arrive at thoughtcrime, it already is too late.

A lot of devout believers experienced mental anguish when hearing the earth wasn’t the center of the universe.

And yet it moves.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com