3 ms·

I think it is a great explanation. It makes the reactions understandable to me. Now it seems like an example of shooting the messenger of a disliked message (wh

by madez 9y ago

I think it is a great explanation. It makes the reactions understandable to me. Now it seems like an example of shooting the messenger of a disliked message (where the message here is not a fact, but a thought). There is a certain emotional dryness to scientific curiosity, at least to me, social norms do not have a say. The boundary for me are ethics. I did not see unethical behaviour, so I do not sympethize with the silent/vague outrage. I wish we could talk about suicide more freely. Why do we talk about breast cancer but not suicide? I think because the illusion of free will is still so prevalent, and psychological problems are fallout-causingly considered connected with the concept of guilt. These archaic ideas do not stand the test of time. Science and ethics supplant them. I once read that reports about suicide increase the likelihood of others committing suicide. Is that reason enough to censor debate about it? That is a hard ethical question. I would say it depends on the medium where the discussion is held. HN seems acceptable to me, though I see arguments against it.

andrewflnr 9y ago
The way you treat others' emotions is an ethical matter. For the rest, I agree. There are important discussions to be had about suicide. I'm mostly just saying cft's post was the wrong way to bring it up.
- madez 9y ago
  > The way you treat others' emotions is an ethical matter. This is a fundamental conflict in ethics. Where does freedom end in the face of the freedom of others? Now, in this case, there is framing going on. One could say that group A were playing with the emotions of group B and hurt them that way. I think, on the other hand, group A wanted to have a conversation about a topic, group B did not tolerate that discussion and tried to shut it up. I think group B acted unethical. If you don't like a topic of a debate, do not take part in it. After all, that is trivially easy here on HN. To me this seems to be an example of aggressive political correctness; a topic is identified as unwanted, and attacked with the aim to shut it down. This critique is not against you. Others that have also commented here show this behaviour blatantly. You on the other hand gave constructive critique and insight, even though I disagree with the judgement. What is a "right" way to bring up a topic? The way it was brought up was literally a single word with a question mark. I don't think this is the optimal way to constructively bring a discussion forward, but it certainly does not deserve the reaction it got.
pron 9y ago
I wish we could talk about autism more freely. It's a terrible condition that seems to afflict many in these parts. It inhibits people's ability to judge the context rather than the content of social interaction, and causes them to misjudge and disregard others' contextual receptiveness to their own immediate needs.

by madez 9y ago

andrewflnr 9y ago

The way you treat others' emotions is an ethical matter. For the rest, I agree. There are important discussions to be had about suicide. I'm mostly just saying cft's post was the wrong way to bring it up.

madez 9y ago
> The way you treat others' emotions is an ethical matter. This is a fundamental conflict in ethics. Where does freedom end in the face of the freedom of others? Now, in this case, there is framing going on. One could say that group A were playing with the emotions of group B and hurt them that way. I think, on the other hand, group A wanted to have a conversation about a topic, group B did not tolerate that discussion and tried to shut it up. I think group B acted unethical. If you don't like a topic of a debate, do not take part in it. After all, that is trivially easy here on HN. To me this seems to be an example of aggressive political correctness; a topic is identified as unwanted, and attacked with the aim to shut it down. This critique is not against you. Others that have also commented here show this behaviour blatantly. You on the other hand gave constructive critique and insight, even though I disagree with the judgement. What is a "right" way to bring up a topic? The way it was brought up was literally a single word with a question mark. I don't think this is the optimal way to constructively bring a discussion forward, but it certainly does not deserve the reaction it got.

pron 9y ago

I wish we could talk about autism more freely. It's a terrible condition that seems to afflict many in these parts. It inhibits people's ability to judge the context rather than the content of social interaction, and causes them to misjudge and disregard others' contextual receptiveness to their own immediate needs.