4 ms·

He finishes up with A Modest Proposal. Edit: Oh no! I am getting downvoted by HN users who didn't get the reference and/or have completely no idea what I belie

He finishes up with A Modest Proposal. Edit: Oh no! I am getting downvoted by HN users who didn't get the reference and/or have completely no idea what I believe with regard to the issues at hand in the article.

pron 11y ago
I think the whole piece is satirical, but the satire is either too vague and lacks all humor, and so ends up being more disturbing than thought provoking or funny (which I can only assume was the author's intent). I'm afraid some people might take this joke seriously. In fact, I'm afraid the joke must be lost on anyone not familiar with the "scientific" social Darwinist writings of the 1920s and '30s which this piece clearly tries to emulate. A promo piece for "The Man in the High Castle", perhaps?
- tomp 11y ago
  Why would it be satire?
  - pron 11y ago
    Well, like I said, it's not very good satire, but I figured it must be satirizing one of two things: 1. The kind of writing you can find in some blogs popular among certain people who publish writings in favor of "reason" but whose reason or curiosity does not extend to the workings of actual people. They are either blind to the strong irrational forces motivating them, or aware and afraid of them and wish to be rid of them, as "reason" (at least their interpretation of it) is something that they feel they can cope with. They then propose solutions to solve society's problems provided that society was made of point-mass people and somehow displayed tractable dynamics. I call this kind of writing "spherical-cow sociology". What these people really want is a recognition of their own abilities and their own rise to power, something they feel they've been unjustly denied and rightfully deserve. This is a modern manifestation of the comic-book heroes of the 1930s-'60s, all created by people who felt powerless. Unlike those comic-book writers, the contributions of the contemporary group are questionable, as the models of society they come up with serve their own particular psychological needs and lack the mass-appeal of Superman. 2. The kind of writing popular in the 1920s and '30s by social Darwinists who actually were curious about real people and knowledgeable about the workings of society, but were seeking moral justification for their continued subjugation of others. These were people who were already in power (i.e. they felt sufficiently empowered), but felt pangs of guilt regarding their treatment of others, which they wanted to sweep away. The giveaway is the laser-focused emphasis on intelligence and material benefits, simplified-ad-absurdum models that appeal to the limited thought of those in the first group, and the suggestion of eugenics, a popular choice among those in the second.
    - capitalsigma 11y ago
      Compare it to the tone of the rest of the articles on the site. The top link right now, for example, mentions that climate change predicted by "warmists" is a lie.
- lookACamel 11y ago
  It's definitely not satire.

pron 11y ago

I think the whole piece is satirical, but the satire is either too vague and lacks all humor, and so ends up being more disturbing than thought provoking or funny (which I can only assume was the author's intent). I'm afraid some people might take this joke seriously. In fact, I'm afraid the joke must be lost on anyone not familiar with the "scientific" social Darwinist writings of the 1920s and '30s which this piece clearly tries to emulate. A promo piece for "The Man in the High Castle", perhaps?

tomp 11y ago
Why would it be satire?
- pron 11y ago
  Well, like I said, it's not very good satire, but I figured it must be satirizing one of two things: 1. The kind of writing you can find in some blogs popular among certain people who publish writings in favor of "reason" but whose reason or curiosity does not extend to the workings of actual people. They are either blind to the strong irrational forces motivating them, or aware and afraid of them and wish to be rid of them, as "reason" (at least their interpretation of it) is something that they feel they can cope with. They then propose solutions to solve society's problems provided that society was made of point-mass people and somehow displayed tractable dynamics. I call this kind of writing "spherical-cow sociology". What these people really want is a recognition of their own abilities and their own rise to power, something they feel they've been unjustly denied and rightfully deserve. This is a modern manifestation of the comic-book heroes of the 1930s-'60s, all created by people who felt powerless. Unlike those comic-book writers, the contributions of the contemporary group are questionable, as the models of society they come up with serve their own particular psychological needs and lack the mass-appeal of Superman. 2. The kind of writing popular in the 1920s and '30s by social Darwinists who actually were curious about real people and knowledgeable about the workings of society, but were seeking moral justification for their continued subjugation of others. These were people who were already in power (i.e. they felt sufficiently empowered), but felt pangs of guilt regarding their treatment of others, which they wanted to sweep away. The giveaway is the laser-focused emphasis on intelligence and material benefits, simplified-ad-absurdum models that appeal to the limited thought of those in the first group, and the suggestion of eugenics, a popular choice among those in the second.
  - capitalsigma 11y ago
    Compare it to the tone of the rest of the articles on the site. The top link right now, for example, mentions that climate change predicted by "warmists" is a lie.
lookACamel 11y ago
It's definitely not satire.