Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by csours | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

csours

Those are examples of things that are hard for some to accept as bare facts.

Person Y won the election

Person Y won the election and that is BAD

Person Y won the election and that is GOOD

It is not a matter of denial, it is a matter of what story is made to accept the event.

If you have not had to fight about the topic, you can just make the first bare assertion. The event happened.

If you have fought about the topic and your central nervous system gets activated when you think about it, then the assertion will likely include moral judgement. The event didn't just happened, it happened for a good or bad reason.

View on HN

Sorry but no one is denying that Trump won the 2024 election in the same way Trump and Republicans have denied that Biden won in 2020 and claiming such is very disingenuous. And saying person Y winning the election is good or bad is a matter of opinion, not fact.

You are misunderstanding their point. They are not saying that anybody is denying the election results.

A "bare fact", as they put it, is a statement exclusively of fact. Adding the qualifier to the fact makes it no longer a "bare fact". To use their example, "Snoop won the election," is a bare fact and, "Snoop won the election and that's bad," is not a bare fact.

What they are saying is that some people cannot accept "bare fact" statements as such; they tend to add or expect some qualifier to the effect of "that's good" or "that's bad".

I quote OP "Donald Trump was elected president. Can you accept that as a bare fact? Probably not if you've fought with people about it."

That quote is consistent with what I wrote. If a quarrel (or a physical fight) breaks out over a discussion about a fact then it’s likely that the parties involved with the quarrel aren’t accepting the fact as “bare” (per the meaning I take from OP’s comment). That is to say, they implicitly or explicitly include the “that’s good” or “that’s bad” qualifier alongside the fact rather than accepting it as a “bare” statement of fact.

This is meta communication - communicating about communication. In a complex world it is important to understand when and why communication fails.

I feel that it is important to accept that some things are hard to talk about, and it is important to understand why those things are hard to talk about.

It is hard to communicate rationally while the fight or flight response is engaged. It is hard to communicate rationally to people who either explicitly want to hurt you or who don't mind if you are harmed.

I also am not denying that Trump won.

I am saying that acceptance is complicated.

Yes people have strong opinions.

Denying that strong opinions exist harms communication.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com