8 ms·

It is important to define safe havens for countercultural ideas, morals, and lifestyles, because this is how societal innovation happens. It needs to extend bey

by Taek 10y ago

It is important to define safe havens for countercultural ideas, morals, and lifestyles, because this is how societal innovation happens. It needs to extend beyond speech. There is a big effort in the West to homogenize the world. Everyone should accept gays. Everyone should hate paedophiles. Marijuana is good, heroin is bad. Democracy is the best form of government. We want the whole world to look like our interpretation of what is morally correct, which is where a lot of social justice movement comes from. But this is stagnating, and not everyone wants to live under the same set of global moral rules, especially since we seem to believe that morality is relative. Freedom of speech is a big indicator of this. If people don't have freedom of speech, they likely are being restricted in other ways as well.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
harveywi 10y ago
Reminds me of what happens when a bunch of independent software dev teams at an organization suddenly are forced to assimilate under a monolithic "IT Governance" structure where they (and their constituent workers) are modeled as fungible agents that can be juggled from project to project on a management whim. Suddenly all projects are forced to use the same cookie-cutter tools and cargo cult methodologies regardless of the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" factor. The MBAs lording over the whole thing enjoy their newfound power. In real life, maybe a good analogue would be the existence of the 50 United (but independently-governed) States and the struggle against the tendrils of the federal government. Or a similar thing going on in the European Union. I don't politics much so maybe I'm way off.
kilroy123 10y ago
Exactly. If you ever get the chance, have a long talk with a person from China. (outside of China) They don't completely have the same views as Americans. _Some_, don't exactly feel the same way about it as we do in the west. Or thing it's even necessary.
- bad_user 10y ago
  Not sure what the "outside of China" is supposed to mean, but you can't trust the opinions of somebody whose freedom of speech is restricted and that has been raised by state propaganda. Even if they are "outside", everybody has family left behind. If you really want to find out how being a Chinese feels like, you couldn't be very wrong to talk with people born in eastern Europe during communism. I'm one.
  - mlvljr 10y ago
    But not the only.
  - dreamfactory2 10y ago
    > you can't trust the opinions of somebody whose freedom of speech is restricted and that has been raised by state propaganda This definition applies to everybody, moreso those who don't realise it applies to them
  - kilroy123 10y ago
    It didn't seem that way to me. If they've been living or traveling in the US for some time, they know talking to you freely won't get anyone in trouble.
nostromo 10y ago
> We want the whole world to look like our interpretation of what is morally correct, which is where a lot of social justice movement comes from. The irony is that in America this is considered "liberal." It is not -- liberalism is the opposite of much of what it's come to mean in America. When I was growing up in the US it was conservatives that were trying to control speech and expression. They wanted burning flags to be illegal. They wanted limits on "offensive" speech, including erotic imagery on tv and in art, violent music and video games. They wanted to control what ideas could be expressed in school. Now it has flipped. The "you can't say that" banner has been taken over by the Left in the US. I don't know what we should call Democrats now, but they're not liberal. (Maybe Democratic Socialists is a more fitting term.)
- maerF0x0 10y ago
  Agreed. Its always funny to hear a "liberal" say to someone "you're so close minded" just because the chastised doesnt believe with them.
- harveywi 10y ago
  It's like there are two principal eigenfrequencies competing for dominance and inducing high-energy instability. Would separating the components reduce the free energy of the system and allow a better equilibrium to occur?
  - voidz 10y ago
    You got it right as I see it, and I'm not even an American citizen. Thing is, separating the components is sounding like an external entity will have to do this. I don't see it happening; not by the citizens who decide to take a new direction en masse, and also not by govt oversight or so on. Was wondering if you had thoughts related to this which you can elaborate on. To me it feels like a stalemate: no real democracy, just status quo maintenance. (Tangential: I'm really bummed out with how the Dutch govt has chosen to entirely ignore the outcome of the last Dutch referendum held on the 13th of April, 2016, which was about the EU's association treaty with Ukraine. Significantly voted against by citizens, Dutch govt and all other eu member states, all chose to entirely ignore the outcome - while to this day they choose words extremely careful to make it seem differently. Democracy, over here, has died to protect the status quo.)
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
k-mcgrady 10y ago
>> "Everyone should accept gays. Everyone should hate paedophiles. Marijuana is good, heroin is bad." Just looking at those issues it seems like there is one pretty clear moral stance to cover them all - as long as what you do does not have negative externalities go ahead and do it. Homosexuality does not have any negative impact on other people. Neither does marijuana. Pedophilia does. As does most heroin use (not all but a significant amount will lead to crime, burdening the health system etc.). Apply the moral rule above and you should only get restrictions on things that are going to negatively effect society. The problem is when you start to apply your own morals to society (religious beliefs for example). Then you start restricting behaviours which have no actual impact on your life.
- lobotryas 10y ago
  I'm worried you're missing the forest for the trees. As I see it, the over-arching point is not about individual issue, but the danger of debating them or, in some circles, daring to voice a dissenting opinion. What if someone disagreed with you on one of the issues you bring up? I'd like to think that here, on HN, the two of you would have an interesting discussion and, at worst, part ways agreeing to disagree. In other parts of life or the internet that other person (or you) may not be so lucky.
  - gaur 10y ago
    > What if someone disagreed with you on one of the issues you bring up? What if someone disagreed with the assertion that Jews or Black people should be societally accepted? Would you really just say "Kudos to you for daring to voice a dissenting opinion!" and relish the opportunity to have an "interesting discussion" about it? Some opinions are just dumb and/or hateful and do not need to be politely debated online at every opportunity. It doesn't mean they should be censored, but it doesn't mean they should be treated with respect either.
    - k-mcgrady 10y ago
      I was in the middle of writing a similar comment to OP but I think his point was that on HN, even if someone has a reprehensible view, like those you've outlined, we will debate (or ignore), we may get angry, but we will not harass them or dox them or do anything stupid. We will not set a mob of Twitter followers on them. We will debate or ignore and move on. And I suppose it's good that someone with one of those views feels comfortable enough to voice it here as we are given the opportunity to change their mind through rational discussion. On Twitter they'll either be too scared to discuss it (no opportunity for us to change their opinion) or they'll bring it up, face the mob, and likely their belief will become hardened.
skylan_q 10y ago
Everyone should accept gays. Everyone should hate paedophiles. Marijuana is good, heroin is bad. Democracy is the best form of government. If you don't agree with all of this, you are literally Hitler.
xiphias 10y ago
I don't consider representative democracy as democracy. In Switzerland people vote quite often (on the internet as well), that's much closer to democracy.
- Veratyr 10y ago
  Representative democracy in one of the more well known forms (America's) is demonstrably an oligarchy: https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/fi...

by Taek 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

harveywi 10y ago

Reminds me of what happens when a bunch of independent software dev teams at an organization suddenly are forced to assimilate under a monolithic "IT Governance" structure where they (and their constituent workers) are modeled as fungible agents that can be juggled from project to project on a management whim. Suddenly all projects are forced to use the same cookie-cutter tools and cargo cult methodologies regardless of the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" factor. The MBAs lording over the whole thing enjoy their newfound power. In real life, maybe a good analogue would be the existence of the 50 United (but independently-governed) States and the struggle against the tendrils of the federal government. Or a similar thing going on in the European Union. I don't politics much so maybe I'm way off.

kilroy123 10y ago

Exactly. If you ever get the chance, have a long talk with a person from China. (outside of China) They don't completely have the same views as Americans. _Some_, don't exactly feel the same way about it as we do in the west. Or thing it's even necessary.

bad_user 10y ago
Not sure what the "outside of China" is supposed to mean, but you can't trust the opinions of somebody whose freedom of speech is restricted and that has been raised by state propaganda. Even if they are "outside", everybody has family left behind. If you really want to find out how being a Chinese feels like, you couldn't be very wrong to talk with people born in eastern Europe during communism. I'm one.
- mlvljr 10y ago
  But not the only.
- dreamfactory2 10y ago
  > you can't trust the opinions of somebody whose freedom of speech is restricted and that has been raised by state propaganda This definition applies to everybody, moreso those who don't realise it applies to them
- kilroy123 10y ago
  It didn't seem that way to me. If they've been living or traveling in the US for some time, they know talking to you freely won't get anyone in trouble.

nostromo 10y ago

> We want the whole world to look like our interpretation of what is morally correct, which is where a lot of social justice movement comes from. The irony is that in America this is considered "liberal." It is not -- liberalism is the opposite of much of what it's come to mean in America. When I was growing up in the US it was conservatives that were trying to control speech and expression. They wanted burning flags to be illegal. They wanted limits on "offensive" speech, including erotic imagery on tv and in art, violent music and video games. They wanted to control what ideas could be expressed in school. Now it has flipped. The "you can't say that" banner has been taken over by the Left in the US. I don't know what we should call Democrats now, but they're not liberal. (Maybe Democratic Socialists is a more fitting term.)

maerF0x0 10y ago
Agreed. Its always funny to hear a "liberal" say to someone "you're so close minded" just because the chastised doesnt believe with them.
harveywi 10y ago
It's like there are two principal eigenfrequencies competing for dominance and inducing high-energy instability. Would separating the components reduce the free energy of the system and allow a better equilibrium to occur?
- voidz 10y ago
  You got it right as I see it, and I'm not even an American citizen. Thing is, separating the components is sounding like an external entity will have to do this. I don't see it happening; not by the citizens who decide to take a new direction en masse, and also not by govt oversight or so on. Was wondering if you had thoughts related to this which you can elaborate on. To me it feels like a stalemate: no real democracy, just status quo maintenance. (Tangential: I'm really bummed out with how the Dutch govt has chosen to entirely ignore the outcome of the last Dutch referendum held on the 13th of April, 2016, which was about the EU's association treaty with Ukraine. Significantly voted against by citizens, Dutch govt and all other eu member states, all chose to entirely ignore the outcome - while to this day they choose words extremely careful to make it seem differently. Democracy, over here, has died to protect the status quo.)

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

k-mcgrady 10y ago

>> "Everyone should accept gays. Everyone should hate paedophiles. Marijuana is good, heroin is bad." Just looking at those issues it seems like there is one pretty clear moral stance to cover them all - as long as what you do does not have negative externalities go ahead and do it. Homosexuality does not have any negative impact on other people. Neither does marijuana. Pedophilia does. As does most heroin use (not all but a significant amount will lead to crime, burdening the health system etc.). Apply the moral rule above and you should only get restrictions on things that are going to negatively effect society. The problem is when you start to apply your own morals to society (religious beliefs for example). Then you start restricting behaviours which have no actual impact on your life.

lobotryas 10y ago
I'm worried you're missing the forest for the trees. As I see it, the over-arching point is not about individual issue, but the danger of debating them or, in some circles, daring to voice a dissenting opinion. What if someone disagreed with you on one of the issues you bring up? I'd like to think that here, on HN, the two of you would have an interesting discussion and, at worst, part ways agreeing to disagree. In other parts of life or the internet that other person (or you) may not be so lucky.
- gaur 10y ago
  > What if someone disagreed with you on one of the issues you bring up? What if someone disagreed with the assertion that Jews or Black people should be societally accepted? Would you really just say "Kudos to you for daring to voice a dissenting opinion!" and relish the opportunity to have an "interesting discussion" about it? Some opinions are just dumb and/or hateful and do not need to be politely debated online at every opportunity. It doesn't mean they should be censored, but it doesn't mean they should be treated with respect either.
  - k-mcgrady 10y ago
    I was in the middle of writing a similar comment to OP but I think his point was that on HN, even if someone has a reprehensible view, like those you've outlined, we will debate (or ignore), we may get angry, but we will not harass them or dox them or do anything stupid. We will not set a mob of Twitter followers on them. We will debate or ignore and move on. And I suppose it's good that someone with one of those views feels comfortable enough to voice it here as we are given the opportunity to change their mind through rational discussion. On Twitter they'll either be too scared to discuss it (no opportunity for us to change their opinion) or they'll bring it up, face the mob, and likely their belief will become hardened.

skylan_q 10y ago

Everyone should accept gays. Everyone should hate paedophiles. Marijuana is good, heroin is bad. Democracy is the best form of government. If you don't agree with all of this, you are literally Hitler.

xiphias 10y ago

I don't consider representative democracy as democracy. In Switzerland people vote quite often (on the internet as well), that's much closer to democracy.

Veratyr 10y ago
Representative democracy in one of the more well known forms (America's) is demonstrably an oligarchy: https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/fi...