Hacker News Reader

Comment by s1artibartfast | Hacker News Reader

Nuance and critical thought is difficult in the current media environment. For those primed to outrage, Hyakuta preceded the entire comment with this quote "Im not saying this is a good solution- I mean, it really isnt good." [1]. It seems like the primary complaint amounts to people not wanting to imagine or think about distasteful topics.

I wonder what kind of headlines Jonathan Swift's modest proposal would generate in the modern clickbait era. "Irish influencer apologies for abhorrent suggestion that the poor feed their children to the rich."

https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/uterus-removal-for-women-at-...

View on HN

Jonathan Swift's Modest Proposal was satire. Are you suggesting Naoki Hyakuta's comment was as well? I haven't read it that way.

And just because he prefixed it with a disclaimer of how bad it was doesn't negate his responsibility to not say stupid things.

And it is stupid to think that if you restrict the right for half your population to marry then you'll increase the birth rate.

Im not saying it was satire; it wasn't meant to be humorous or hypocritical. It was an intentionally hyperbolic example to illustrate what the concept of radical social engineering is, and how it could drive a sense of immediacy.

Why is it a stupid thing to say? It wasn't proposed as a validated or effective solution. I agree that a marriage ban after 25 probably wouldn't help.

The point wasn't to propose viable solutions - they were repeatedly stated to be bad.

I agree that the concept could have been presented more clearly, and used an unnecessarily distasteful example.

I just dont think that justifies the lying, disinfo, and manufactured outrage about what he said.

He clearly was not "advocating for a ban on women marrying after the age of 25 and having their uteruses removed at the age of 30." and didn't "[suggest] barring women from attending college after the age of 18"

If the headline read "politician uses horrific example with unclear point" there would be fewer clicks. Lies sell adds and fear drives up engagement.

Is the goal to get people to think positively about radical social engineering?

If so, it might have been more useful to start with a more plausible example. As it is, it looks like it's trying to make the notion of "radical social engineering" look bad.

Unfortunately, it's hard to "think outside the box" because the box often exists for a reason. Most of what's outside the box is bad. Maybe it has also excluded something extraordinarily good, but you won't find it by casting about at random. Just telling people to think more radically doesn't seem to be helpful.

>Is the goal to get people to think positively about radical social engineering?

That was my take away from the interview. And yes, I would agree the interview did not present the well.

My point is that those are legitimate criticisms, deceitful journalism and outright lies are not legitimate criticism.

We can debate how valuable it is to think outside the box is, and when to do it.

That said, hopefully we both agree that spreading lies, misinformation, and outrage amongst people is not productive either.

Heck, there are even legitimate reasons to be upset by what he said, but that doesn't justify lying about what was actually said. That benefits nobody but those who profit from clicks.

That said, hopefully we both agree that spreading lies, misinformation, and outrage amongst people is not productive either.

You agree; I agree. I'm not sure how many more of us there are, but I don't think it's a majority.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com