7 ms·

Of course not. We tolerate mass injustice and violence (even state perpetuated, both at home and abroad), and racism, and misogyny. We think vengeance is justic

Of course not. We tolerate mass injustice and violence (even state perpetuated, both at home and abroad), and racism, and misogyny. We think vengeance is justice. We savor "redemptive violence". We routinely believe that mercy is weakness. We harbor numerous misunderstandings and superstitions on vitally important subjects ranging from relationships to economics to science to mental illnesses to sexual orientation and gender to recreational drug use. Modern? We're practically medieval. But at least there is some glimmering of hope that we understand our problems and are working to fix them.

mhurron 10y ago
Ya, but checkout my watch.
ysavir 10y ago
You didn't read the article, did you?
jasode 10y ago
>Of course not. We tolerate mass injustice and violence [...] We harbor numerous misunderstandings [...] on vitally important subjects ranging from relationships to economics to science to mental illnesses [...] I get your point but the author in the article is talking about "modern" not in terms of "morals" but in the (meta) philosophy of existence. In his particular definition of "modernity", the world would meet that criteria when most of the inhabitants could look at themselves with philosophical detachment: e.g. Most of us would realize we have no special centrality in the universe (we're not the only higher life forms in the vastness of space). Our timeslice of humanity is but a microscopic blip in the 14 billion years of its existence. Most of us would seriously think it's possible that _we_ are digital avatars in "the matrix", etc. Furthermore, the author feels that assessing "modernity" by looking at the technological progress around us is deceptive and therefore it's a bad measurement. Instead, he thinks humans reach a threshold of "modernity" when a large percentage internalize deep philosophical questions like the way Descartes and Hume did.
- panglott 10y ago
  "Modernity" is a term of art that refers to the physical conditions and philosophical preoccupations of the modern world (ca. 1600 CE Europe, and after). [0] Through this lens, it's kind of a circular question: of course we are moderns because we're engaged with the philosophical preoccupations of the modern period (humanistic and scientific philosophy rather than Christian theology). When you look at the philosophical questions of medieval Europe, they just have fundamentally different premises and methods; Thomas Aquinas just has very different concerns and methods than Francis Bacon. I'd think it was just a dud headline, were it not for the closing line. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernity
- InclinedPlane 10y ago
  My point is, it's a bit much to ask for people to adopt philosophical modernity without having a "modern" values system first. (And on the flip side, having a "modern" philosophical perspective is often a ready conduit for bootstrapping a "modern" (e.g. humanist) values system.) The conceit of modernity is that we are so much superior to the "brutes" of the past. Because our values and our thoughts are so much more sophisticated, so much more true and fundamental. But actually our values are not our values (or, to be more precise, our claimed values are not our values as practiced) and our philosophy is not sophisticated, it's crude. My point is complementary. Our technological advancement, and our "values on paper" blinds us to the reality. In truth we are but brutes, we compare ourselves favorably against the past only because we fail at contextualizing the present in a way that strips away the illusion of modernity caused by technological progress.
  - jasode 10y ago
    >My point is, it's a bit much to ask for people to adopt philosophical modernity without having a "modern" values system first. [...] My point is complementary. I'm not convinced that "morals modernity" is a prerequisite for "philosophical introspection modernity". To me, it seems like those 2 are orthogonal. In other words, we could have both of these outcomes: - I believe we humans are the center of the universe and with Zeus by my side, I'm also going to kill a million people to purify my race. - I believe we might be in The Matrix but can't prove it and I'm also going to kill a million people to purify my race. It looks like both types of "modernity" can coexist. Perhaps the New Yorker shouldn't have put "modern?" in the title. At the bottom of the article, they disclosed that they used a different title (which emphasizes philosophy instead of morals) in other editions: >This article appears in other versions of the September 5, 2016, issue, with the headline “What Makes You So Sure?.” (Btw, I didn't downvote any of your posts.)
tomp 10y ago
Where (in the Western world) are racism and misogyny tolerated?
- creshal 10y ago
  Just have a look at Europe. Discussions about migration here go from "complaining about genuine policy problems" to "blatant racism" in the span it takes people to get slightly drunk, and that's just the start. If I had a nickel for every time I hear random people insulting others as "fucking Jews"… Misogyny is definitely not as bad as it used to be, but it's still everywhere. And in many cases the victims don't report it for whatever reasons.
  - cloakandswagger 10y ago
    I've had the opposite experience: Saying one cross word against open borders or multiculturalism will have you branded as a racist, Nazi, etc. The vast majority of people I've met who challenge these "virtues" aren't frothing hate-mongerers, but their rhetoric naturally becomes more extreme when their questions are immediately dismissed with these ad hominem attacks.
    - bluecalm 10y ago
      Interesting that you were downvoted for making a genuine observation about your environment which relevant to the topic. I agree with you by the way. I see much racism in public debate about immigration problems. It's mostly about culture and religion issues and those are very different than racism.
      - cloakandswagger 10y ago
        It's disappointing but unsurprising. Stifling people you disagree with in such a way serves to create the extremism the original comment alludes to, but it feels a lot better than having an open discussion.
      - creshal 10y ago
InclinedPlane 10y ago
Ah, so many downvotes. And I see people are so mad that they've gone out of their way to downvote other, unrelated posts of mine. Oh well, I guess it's not surprising that HN has become infected with the same virulent "anti-SJW" folks that have been running rampant everywhere else. To be honest I'm somewhat looking forward to proof that HN has sunk into an irredeemable slide into the abyss, it would probably increase my productivity if I avoided this place.
- hx87 10y ago
  You know a place is in the sweet spot when people complain about it being too left wing and too right wing at the same time.
  - InclinedPlane 10y ago
    Not at all. You know a place is in the sweet spot when people say "I really value the discussion here, it's often very enlightening and interesting." Being left/right/center or whatever is an oversimplification of "political" discussions, and claiming that having a "balance" is healthy is the same silliness that leads to things like "Crossfire" on CNN. What matters more is ensuring that productive debates on potentially thorny topics can occur.
    - hx87 10y ago
      And in my experience at least, I have seen and participated in many, many valuable, interesting and enlightening discussions here on HN, and see little evidence that it is going away from that. True, badly made arguments are treated rather harshly, but that is more of an advantage than a disadvantage for a discussion forum.
- GrumpyYoungMan 10y ago
  From the HN guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html): "Please resist commenting about being downvoted. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading."

mhurron 10y ago

Ya, but checkout my watch.

ysavir 10y ago

You didn't read the article, did you?

jasode 10y ago

>Of course not. We tolerate mass injustice and violence [...] We harbor numerous misunderstandings [...] on vitally important subjects ranging from relationships to economics to science to mental illnesses [...] I get your point but the author in the article is talking about "modern" not in terms of "morals" but in the (meta) philosophy of existence. In his particular definition of "modernity", the world would meet that criteria when most of the inhabitants could look at themselves with philosophical detachment: e.g. Most of us would realize we have no special centrality in the universe (we're not the only higher life forms in the vastness of space). Our timeslice of humanity is but a microscopic blip in the 14 billion years of its existence. Most of us would seriously think it's possible that _we_ are digital avatars in "the matrix", etc. Furthermore, the author feels that assessing "modernity" by looking at the technological progress around us is deceptive and therefore it's a bad measurement. Instead, he thinks humans reach a threshold of "modernity" when a large percentage internalize deep philosophical questions like the way Descartes and Hume did.

panglott 10y ago
"Modernity" is a term of art that refers to the physical conditions and philosophical preoccupations of the modern world (ca. 1600 CE Europe, and after). [0] Through this lens, it's kind of a circular question: of course we are moderns because we're engaged with the philosophical preoccupations of the modern period (humanistic and scientific philosophy rather than Christian theology). When you look at the philosophical questions of medieval Europe, they just have fundamentally different premises and methods; Thomas Aquinas just has very different concerns and methods than Francis Bacon. I'd think it was just a dud headline, were it not for the closing line. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernity
InclinedPlane 10y ago
My point is, it's a bit much to ask for people to adopt philosophical modernity without having a "modern" values system first. (And on the flip side, having a "modern" philosophical perspective is often a ready conduit for bootstrapping a "modern" (e.g. humanist) values system.) The conceit of modernity is that we are so much superior to the "brutes" of the past. Because our values and our thoughts are so much more sophisticated, so much more true and fundamental. But actually our values are not our values (or, to be more precise, our claimed values are not our values as practiced) and our philosophy is not sophisticated, it's crude. My point is complementary. Our technological advancement, and our "values on paper" blinds us to the reality. In truth we are but brutes, we compare ourselves favorably against the past only because we fail at contextualizing the present in a way that strips away the illusion of modernity caused by technological progress.
- jasode 10y ago
  >My point is, it's a bit much to ask for people to adopt philosophical modernity without having a "modern" values system first. [...] My point is complementary. I'm not convinced that "morals modernity" is a prerequisite for "philosophical introspection modernity". To me, it seems like those 2 are orthogonal. In other words, we could have both of these outcomes: - I believe we humans are the center of the universe and with Zeus by my side, I'm also going to kill a million people to purify my race. - I believe we might be in The Matrix but can't prove it and I'm also going to kill a million people to purify my race. It looks like both types of "modernity" can coexist. Perhaps the New Yorker shouldn't have put "modern?" in the title. At the bottom of the article, they disclosed that they used a different title (which emphasizes philosophy instead of morals) in other editions: >This article appears in other versions of the September 5, 2016, issue, with the headline “What Makes You So Sure?.” (Btw, I didn't downvote any of your posts.)

tomp 10y ago

Where (in the Western world) are racism and misogyny tolerated?

creshal 10y ago
Just have a look at Europe. Discussions about migration here go from "complaining about genuine policy problems" to "blatant racism" in the span it takes people to get slightly drunk, and that's just the start. If I had a nickel for every time I hear random people insulting others as "fucking Jews"… Misogyny is definitely not as bad as it used to be, but it's still everywhere. And in many cases the victims don't report it for whatever reasons.
- cloakandswagger 10y ago
  I've had the opposite experience: Saying one cross word against open borders or multiculturalism will have you branded as a racist, Nazi, etc. The vast majority of people I've met who challenge these "virtues" aren't frothing hate-mongerers, but their rhetoric naturally becomes more extreme when their questions are immediately dismissed with these ad hominem attacks.
  - bluecalm 10y ago
    Interesting that you were downvoted for making a genuine observation about your environment which relevant to the topic. I agree with you by the way. I see much racism in public debate about immigration problems. It's mostly about culture and religion issues and those are very different than racism.
    - cloakandswagger 10y ago
      It's disappointing but unsurprising. Stifling people you disagree with in such a way serves to create the extremism the original comment alludes to, but it feels a lot better than having an open discussion.
    - creshal 10y ago

InclinedPlane 10y ago

Ah, so many downvotes. And I see people are so mad that they've gone out of their way to downvote other, unrelated posts of mine. Oh well, I guess it's not surprising that HN has become infected with the same virulent "anti-SJW" folks that have been running rampant everywhere else. To be honest I'm somewhat looking forward to proof that HN has sunk into an irredeemable slide into the abyss, it would probably increase my productivity if I avoided this place.

hx87 10y ago
You know a place is in the sweet spot when people complain about it being too left wing and too right wing at the same time.
- InclinedPlane 10y ago
  Not at all. You know a place is in the sweet spot when people say "I really value the discussion here, it's often very enlightening and interesting." Being left/right/center or whatever is an oversimplification of "political" discussions, and claiming that having a "balance" is healthy is the same silliness that leads to things like "Crossfire" on CNN. What matters more is ensuring that productive debates on potentially thorny topics can occur.
  - hx87 10y ago
    And in my experience at least, I have seen and participated in many, many valuable, interesting and enlightening discussions here on HN, and see little evidence that it is going away from that. True, badly made arguments are treated rather harshly, but that is more of an advantage than a disadvantage for a discussion forum.
GrumpyYoungMan 10y ago
From the HN guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html): "Please resist commenting about being downvoted. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading."