12 ms·

This is, in a nutshell, both why I love hackernews and what's so frustrating about discussing a topic these days. It's impossible to explore something you may t

by dcow 9y ago

This is, in a nutshell, both why I love hackernews and what's so frustrating about discussing a topic these days. It's impossible to explore something you may totally disagree with without people generally reducing that exploration to a proxy for your worldview and consequently making character judgements or finding a way to get offended to the point where the identity politics card gets played and you get labeled a bigot for some conclusion you never supported but was obviously present in the undercurrents of your questions. The Supreme Court judges aren't special in that respect. Anyone should be allowed to question and explore a topic without having to issue trigger warnings or generally be expected to manage the "visceral" response their questions might evoke from a bystander observing the discussion or even the participants. The way you handle input into your personal biological process is your responsibility not mine. And society does not exist to protect you from malicious input, although you are free to choose networks where the chances frequency of receiving such input is relatively low.

cbhl 9y ago
This is tricky because there are lots of people who "ask questions" just to avoid admitting that they are a bigot. If you are genuinely seeking new information, great! But you should do your homework first, which includes finding the right person to ask the question to.
- KekDemaga 9y ago
  > This is tricky because there are lots of people who "ask questions" just to avoid admitting that they are a bigot. I am confused on how this would work in practice. What kinds of questions do you propose these bigoted people are asking?
  - SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
    Loaded ones, eg: "Why should I pay for taxes to support single mothers just so black men don't have to pay child support?" Now, I think we should still encourage them to ask those kinds of questions, because I believe in an open and liberal society and that the best reaction to poor thinking is to address it directly, that the answer to speech I don't like is more speech. But it's pretty easy for some really racist opinions about others to hide behind questions like that. Of course, there are also some uncomfortable truths in those questions which cause us to silence them, such as -- "Are the disparaties we see in racial groups purely the effect of lingering racial bias, or is there a modern cultural component that happens to align with racial groups and perpetuates the inequality?" (And in this case -- the more general, is there a disparity in the fatherhood rates that correlates with racial grouping?) Ed: I think the people downvoting proved someone upthread's point -- I literally provided an example I've heard of such a question and got downvoted for providing facts to a discussion.
    - s73ver_ 9y ago
      I disagree. We shouldn't encourage those questions from being asked, especially when the only reason they are being asked is to demonstrate someone's bigotry, and spread that bigotry and attempt to make it more mainstream. If you honestly want to ask a question like that, do so in the second manner you showed.
      - SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
        Has that method successfully prevented bigots from collaborating, growing, and exerting political influences -- say in elections over the past year? I'm not saying we give them a megaphone, but if bigotry is prevalent (and it seems to be), then the best antidote is to expose it and address that directly. Why? Simple. Bigots are bigots for reasons -- even if they're not (in our esteem) good ones. You can't address the symptom (bigotry) without addressing the cause (those reasons). Your method only leads to wounds festering under bandages, and not the exposure and cleansing we need for healing.
        s73ver_ 9y ago
        At the same time, what you're suggesting encourages the constant dumping on marginalized people with those "questions". Constantly being assailed like that takes its toll, and can lead to those people withdrawing from social media, removing their point of view from the discourse, and emboldening that of the bigots.
        SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
        > Constantly being assailed like that takes its toll, and can lead to those people withdrawing from social media, removing their point of view from the discourse, and emboldening that of the bigots. From my understanding of social media, it hasn't been workable trying to stop outright racist comments being hurled at those marginalized people -- so I just can't agree that not actually addressing the cause so we don't hypothetically do less damage than is actually being done right now by the problem is a workable idea. That's the kind of squeamish bargaining done by people without the stomach to tackle complex or hard topics: "Can't we all just get along without it being messy!" Your complaint is like saying that surgery hurts, can't we just let the infection fester? The surgery doesn't even hurt as much as the infection! Why would we do that? This is, for the moment, setting aside that we could work with technology to do better at time/place of those questions and filtering so the stream isn't overwhelming for (or even involuntarily sent to) any particular marginalized person. And so at a technical level, you're solving the problem in an inefficient way (trying to legislate human nature versus changing how we route text online).
  - kangman 9y ago
    if you are a bigot then your range of questions and the people to put them to would be inherently limited.
  - 52-6F-62 9y ago
    "Why should I pay into social welfare programs when I've worked so hard to get where I am?" Implies people who have to take on welfare as sustenance haven't worked hard enough, and so are undeserving of any help, are therefore inferior and an unjust drain on resources ... and you can take that down the road a little while depending on context ... edit: Tucker Carlson on Fox News does this very often.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - theseatoms 9y ago
      Does "bigoted" really apply to a disdain for perceived laziness?
      - crooked-v 9y ago
        When that perceived laziness is universally applied to the entire class of poor people? Yes.
        iamdave 9y ago
        This is your default assumption in response to hearing that statement? Every time? That the person who spoke it is speaking down on poor people? Every time?
      - wfo 9y ago
        The bigotry is not the disdain for laziness, which is just plain nastiness and a fundamental lack of empathy and human understanding. The bigotry comes first, in the perception of laziness itself. Who is perceived to be lazy? Hard working working-class whites, or lazy working-class blacks living on the dole?
        KekDemaga 9y ago
        Why do you assume that comment is about African Americans?
  - vkou 9y ago
    "Why do blacks even have a problem with the police? If they stop breaking laws, wouldn't they stop getting harassed/killed?" That would be a totally legitimate question, if we lived in a colour-blind world. Or in a world where institutional racism has not been well-documented for decades. Or a world where driving while black was not a reason to get pulled over. We don't, though. Or, the Canadian equivalent: "Why are natives complaining about the government, when they don't pay any taxes?" That would be a totally legitimate question, if we lived in a world where native people did not pay taxes. We don't, though.
    - akvadrako 9y ago
      > "Why do blacks even have a problem with the police? If they stop breaking laws, wouldn't they stop getting harassed/killed?" That actually sounds like quite an important question to ask. And difficult to phrase without sounding racist, which makes it even more important to ask. If you assume someone is more racist than average just because they ask such a question, you are the bigot.
      - wfo 9y ago
        "Why do blacks even have a problem with the police" is an excellent question. The correct answer is "because the police disproportionately arrest them far more for behaving the same way as whites" and "because the police often murder them on the street in cold blood and face no repercussions" and "because the police are known to explicitly harbor white nationalist sympathizers and explicitly make racist comments publicly, in official internal communications, and informally in person". And finally "because the police as an institution in the US is primarily a force designed to protect property, and at its inception property was black slaves; traditionally, the US police are a psuedo-military force whose primary reason for existing was to chase runaway slaves". If your follow up to "Why do blacks even have a problem with the police?" is "all they have to do is stop commiting crimes!" then it is the second statement that is explicitly racist. With the second statement you make the claim that the fault of police abuse lies in the abused, not the abusers, and that black people have no reason to mistrust the police except for the obvious fact that they are criminals.
      - 9y ago
  - s73ver_ 9y ago
    Watch the Glenn Beck show from the Obama years. He was a master of it.
  - throwawayknecht 9y ago
    "What kinds of questions do you propose these bigoted people are asking?"
  - j_s 9y ago
    >cbhl: This is tricky because there are lots of people who "ask questions" just to avoid admitting that they are a bigot. >>KekDemaga: I am confused on how this would work in practice. What kinds of questions do you propose these bigoted people are asking? Crazy to watch a near-literal explosion in this arguably off-topic sub-discussion "just" asking for concrete examples of loaded questions. Am I the only one hearing the imaginary yet ear-splittingly-loud whooshing sound (going "over their head") as people are gearing up and jumping in here? What an amazing demonstration of the power of words as HN users can't resist reacting to examples of inflamatory questions even when they are specifically requested and provided (some even with disclaimers) _as examples_! As an aside, it is almost impossible for me to even begin to differentiate between the naive/geniune vs. trolls vs. devils advocates vs. others (hope that covers most of the bases) at all levels of this sub-thread.
pjc50 9y ago
However, if you're saying things which are indistinguishable from "malicious input", don't be surprised if you're flagged as malicious. > what's so frustrating about discussing a topic these days > you get labeled a bigot You've just said in your own post that if a topic or the way it's discussed upsets someone, that's their problem. So the fact that you find this stuff frustrating is your problem, no?
- jandrese 9y ago
  It's hard to be devils advocate without being mistaken for a devil.
  - wpietri 9y ago
    Especially given that the number of supposed devil's advocates who are pretty clearly devils.
  - vkou 9y ago
    When exactly has the devil needed an advocate? From what I've seen, he tends to be perfectly capable of defending himself.
    - bonzini 9y ago
      The devil's advocate ("advocatus diaboli") is the person who is in charge of arguing _against_ making someone a Saint of the Catholic Church.
    - ianamartin 9y ago
      The Devil’s Advocate is the term used by people who make an argument against a stance they actually support. It’s something you do when preparing an argument for a debate. It’s an attempt to understand and defend an argument or point of view from the opposing side. It’s a thing that has a couple of benefits. 1. You can prepare against counter-arguments better if you try to understand something different from what you think is true or correct. 2. You can use a devil’s advocate to refine your own point of view if you’re willing to have some level of sympathy with the with a person who disagrees with you. It’s a common device, and very useful. Your thoughts about your logic are probably not perfectly logical and probably not totally correct. So if someone engages you from the point of view of the devil, it’s like someone who agrees with you testing your logic and reasoning
eduren 9y ago
One prerequisite to having those sorts of meaningful exploratory discussions is trust between the participants. When I was a member of my college's debate team, there were plenty of times I had to not only explore distasteful viewpoints, but also defend them. But because all participants (debaters, judges, audience) were participating in a structured activity there was less fear that my words would be tied to my worldview. But in general social contexts, there are vastly different rules. When it comes to dealing with possibly distasteful words or actions, then the safest assumption is that the speaker means what he says (walks like a duck...) Now, whether that has always been as apparent, I can't say. I didn't live in the golden years before the internet. But I don't like the automatic assumption that "these days" are somehow incapable of fostering well-intentioned rhetoric.
- kbenson 9y ago
  I would say another prerequisite is allowing that you might have misinterpreted the other party, and exploring what they said that you disagree with before assuming you know all the details of their stance, or whether what you think is their position is actually their position. That's what confused me about the following, if I'm interpreting it correctly: > But in general social contexts, there are vastly different rules. When it comes to dealing with possibly distasteful words or actions, then the safest assumption is that the speaker means what he says (walks like a duck...) I would say the safest assumption is to assume as little as possible initially, and try to dig out the details. Assuming they mean what they say is always problematic because you are assuming they mean what you interpreted them as saying, when in reality they may mean what they intended to express. And lest someone say that's uncommon, I find that it's at least in part true of the vast majority of positions I don't agree with here when solicit more details from the other party. Edit: Cleaned up for clarity
  - dcow 9y ago
    Exactly this. I prefer to "assume no evil" because in my experience, at large, humans are not trying to be assholes to each other and genuinely want what's best for everyone. Or at least it's pretty depressing to operate under the oppossing worldview. After gaining more context then fine, declare evil where it does exist, but don't assume such off the bat.
jancsika 9y ago
> Anyone should be allowed to question and explore a topic without having to issue trigger warnings or generally be expected to manage the "visceral" response their questions might evoke from a bystander observing the discussion or even the participants. That's a non-sequitur. The author is a researcher responding to statements he read/heard from a justice who isn't an expert in that particular field. His main point is the premises underlying the justice's questions reveal a misconception, quite apart from the justice's intent. He's also addressing a general audience in a newspaper, not the Supreme Court, so his intent to clarify misconceptions without regard to the Supreme Court justice's method of inquiry is perfectly reasonable. Furthermore, each argument the author puts forward is not a "visceral response", but instead is supported by links to research. The only thing that could conceivably be different if the quoted justice were, say, Ginsburg, is the author writing a clause opining that she was probably playing devil's advocate. But to shoehorn "trigger warnings", "identity politics", and false labels of bigotry into that discussion is as silly as talking about how the Undertaker threw Mankind off Hell In A Cell, and plummeted 16 ft through an announcer’s table.
- dcow 9y ago
  I'm supporting the parent comment not responding to the article. Sorry if that's not clear.
  - jancsika 9y ago
    I thought the parent commenter was describing a conflict between the interests of the court and the interests of the researcher. That may be a very narrow subset of the more egregious problems you mentioned, but it's a narrow subset that doesn't share most of the dangers of ideological echo chambers. If Eric McGhee and Justice Alito sat shared a train ride, I have no doubt they'd leave knowing more about each other's field than when they started. Replace them with two HN commenters who started out calling each other a bigot and an SJW, respectively, and I doubt they'd learn anything.
cirgue 9y ago
> reducing that exploration to a proxy for your worldview and consequently making character judgements or finding a way to get offended to the point where the identity politics card gets played The problem with the internet is that you only get one comment to say who you are and what you believe. No one knows what else you think about the world, no one knows if you're trolling or for real, and no one can see you as a flesh-and-blood person with a perspective distinct from others unless they go out of their way to. They just see a string of text in among a bunch of other strings of text and react to it.
sukilot 9y ago
Why do "identity-politics"-politics people drag "identity-politics" into every conversation?
jshevek 9y ago
Historically, it seemed to me that many teachers (at all levels) took pains to prepare students to handle disagreement in a healthy way. More recently, it seems that our culture has changed, and that students are being not just indulged, but even encouraged to respond in the unfortunate manner that you describe.

by dcow 9y ago

cbhl 9y ago

This is tricky because there are lots of people who "ask questions" just to avoid admitting that they are a bigot. If you are genuinely seeking new information, great! But you should do your homework first, which includes finding the right person to ask the question to.

KekDemaga 9y ago
> This is tricky because there are lots of people who "ask questions" just to avoid admitting that they are a bigot. I am confused on how this would work in practice. What kinds of questions do you propose these bigoted people are asking?
- SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
  Loaded ones, eg: "Why should I pay for taxes to support single mothers just so black men don't have to pay child support?" Now, I think we should still encourage them to ask those kinds of questions, because I believe in an open and liberal society and that the best reaction to poor thinking is to address it directly, that the answer to speech I don't like is more speech. But it's pretty easy for some really racist opinions about others to hide behind questions like that. Of course, there are also some uncomfortable truths in those questions which cause us to silence them, such as -- "Are the disparaties we see in racial groups purely the effect of lingering racial bias, or is there a modern cultural component that happens to align with racial groups and perpetuates the inequality?" (And in this case -- the more general, is there a disparity in the fatherhood rates that correlates with racial grouping?) Ed: I think the people downvoting proved someone upthread's point -- I literally provided an example I've heard of such a question and got downvoted for providing facts to a discussion.
  - s73ver_ 9y ago
    I disagree. We shouldn't encourage those questions from being asked, especially when the only reason they are being asked is to demonstrate someone's bigotry, and spread that bigotry and attempt to make it more mainstream. If you honestly want to ask a question like that, do so in the second manner you showed.
    - SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
      Has that method successfully prevented bigots from collaborating, growing, and exerting political influences -- say in elections over the past year? I'm not saying we give them a megaphone, but if bigotry is prevalent (and it seems to be), then the best antidote is to expose it and address that directly. Why? Simple. Bigots are bigots for reasons -- even if they're not (in our esteem) good ones. You can't address the symptom (bigotry) without addressing the cause (those reasons). Your method only leads to wounds festering under bandages, and not the exposure and cleansing we need for healing.
      - s73ver_ 9y ago
        At the same time, what you're suggesting encourages the constant dumping on marginalized people with those "questions". Constantly being assailed like that takes its toll, and can lead to those people withdrawing from social media, removing their point of view from the discourse, and emboldening that of the bigots.
        SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
        > Constantly being assailed like that takes its toll, and can lead to those people withdrawing from social media, removing their point of view from the discourse, and emboldening that of the bigots. From my understanding of social media, it hasn't been workable trying to stop outright racist comments being hurled at those marginalized people -- so I just can't agree that not actually addressing the cause so we don't hypothetically do less damage than is actually being done right now by the problem is a workable idea. That's the kind of squeamish bargaining done by people without the stomach to tackle complex or hard topics: "Can't we all just get along without it being messy!" Your complaint is like saying that surgery hurts, can't we just let the infection fester? The surgery doesn't even hurt as much as the infection! Why would we do that? This is, for the moment, setting aside that we could work with technology to do better at time/place of those questions and filtering so the stream isn't overwhelming for (or even involuntarily sent to) any particular marginalized person. And so at a technical level, you're solving the problem in an inefficient way (trying to legislate human nature versus changing how we route text online).
- kangman 9y ago
  if you are a bigot then your range of questions and the people to put them to would be inherently limited.
- 52-6F-62 9y ago
  "Why should I pay into social welfare programs when I've worked so hard to get where I am?" Implies people who have to take on welfare as sustenance haven't worked hard enough, and so are undeserving of any help, are therefore inferior and an unjust drain on resources ... and you can take that down the road a little while depending on context ... edit: Tucker Carlson on Fox News does this very often.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - theseatoms 9y ago
    Does "bigoted" really apply to a disdain for perceived laziness?
    - crooked-v 9y ago
      When that perceived laziness is universally applied to the entire class of poor people? Yes.
      - iamdave 9y ago
        This is your default assumption in response to hearing that statement? Every time? That the person who spoke it is speaking down on poor people? Every time?
    - wfo 9y ago
      The bigotry is not the disdain for laziness, which is just plain nastiness and a fundamental lack of empathy and human understanding. The bigotry comes first, in the perception of laziness itself. Who is perceived to be lazy? Hard working working-class whites, or lazy working-class blacks living on the dole?
      - KekDemaga 9y ago
        Why do you assume that comment is about African Americans?
- vkou 9y ago
  "Why do blacks even have a problem with the police? If they stop breaking laws, wouldn't they stop getting harassed/killed?" That would be a totally legitimate question, if we lived in a colour-blind world. Or in a world where institutional racism has not been well-documented for decades. Or a world where driving while black was not a reason to get pulled over. We don't, though. Or, the Canadian equivalent: "Why are natives complaining about the government, when they don't pay any taxes?" That would be a totally legitimate question, if we lived in a world where native people did not pay taxes. We don't, though.
  - akvadrako 9y ago
    > "Why do blacks even have a problem with the police? If they stop breaking laws, wouldn't they stop getting harassed/killed?" That actually sounds like quite an important question to ask. And difficult to phrase without sounding racist, which makes it even more important to ask. If you assume someone is more racist than average just because they ask such a question, you are the bigot.
    - wfo 9y ago
      "Why do blacks even have a problem with the police" is an excellent question. The correct answer is "because the police disproportionately arrest them far more for behaving the same way as whites" and "because the police often murder them on the street in cold blood and face no repercussions" and "because the police are known to explicitly harbor white nationalist sympathizers and explicitly make racist comments publicly, in official internal communications, and informally in person". And finally "because the police as an institution in the US is primarily a force designed to protect property, and at its inception property was black slaves; traditionally, the US police are a psuedo-military force whose primary reason for existing was to chase runaway slaves". If your follow up to "Why do blacks even have a problem with the police?" is "all they have to do is stop commiting crimes!" then it is the second statement that is explicitly racist. With the second statement you make the claim that the fault of police abuse lies in the abused, not the abusers, and that black people have no reason to mistrust the police except for the obvious fact that they are criminals.
    - 9y ago
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  Watch the Glenn Beck show from the Obama years. He was a master of it.
- throwawayknecht 9y ago
  "What kinds of questions do you propose these bigoted people are asking?"
- j_s 9y ago
  >cbhl: This is tricky because there are lots of people who "ask questions" just to avoid admitting that they are a bigot. >>KekDemaga: I am confused on how this would work in practice. What kinds of questions do you propose these bigoted people are asking? Crazy to watch a near-literal explosion in this arguably off-topic sub-discussion "just" asking for concrete examples of loaded questions. Am I the only one hearing the imaginary yet ear-splittingly-loud whooshing sound (going "over their head") as people are gearing up and jumping in here? What an amazing demonstration of the power of words as HN users can't resist reacting to examples of inflamatory questions even when they are specifically requested and provided (some even with disclaimers) _as examples_! As an aside, it is almost impossible for me to even begin to differentiate between the naive/geniune vs. trolls vs. devils advocates vs. others (hope that covers most of the bases) at all levels of this sub-thread.

pjc50 9y ago

However, if you're saying things which are indistinguishable from "malicious input", don't be surprised if you're flagged as malicious. > what's so frustrating about discussing a topic these days > you get labeled a bigot You've just said in your own post that if a topic or the way it's discussed upsets someone, that's their problem. So the fact that you find this stuff frustrating is your problem, no?

jandrese 9y ago
It's hard to be devils advocate without being mistaken for a devil.
- wpietri 9y ago
  Especially given that the number of supposed devil's advocates who are pretty clearly devils.
- vkou 9y ago
  When exactly has the devil needed an advocate? From what I've seen, he tends to be perfectly capable of defending himself.
  - bonzini 9y ago
    The devil's advocate ("advocatus diaboli") is the person who is in charge of arguing _against_ making someone a Saint of the Catholic Church.
  - ianamartin 9y ago
    The Devil’s Advocate is the term used by people who make an argument against a stance they actually support. It’s something you do when preparing an argument for a debate. It’s an attempt to understand and defend an argument or point of view from the opposing side. It’s a thing that has a couple of benefits. 1. You can prepare against counter-arguments better if you try to understand something different from what you think is true or correct. 2. You can use a devil’s advocate to refine your own point of view if you’re willing to have some level of sympathy with the with a person who disagrees with you. It’s a common device, and very useful. Your thoughts about your logic are probably not perfectly logical and probably not totally correct. So if someone engages you from the point of view of the devil, it’s like someone who agrees with you testing your logic and reasoning

eduren 9y ago

One prerequisite to having those sorts of meaningful exploratory discussions is trust between the participants. When I was a member of my college's debate team, there were plenty of times I had to not only explore distasteful viewpoints, but also defend them. But because all participants (debaters, judges, audience) were participating in a structured activity there was less fear that my words would be tied to my worldview. But in general social contexts, there are vastly different rules. When it comes to dealing with possibly distasteful words or actions, then the safest assumption is that the speaker means what he says (walks like a duck...) Now, whether that has always been as apparent, I can't say. I didn't live in the golden years before the internet. But I don't like the automatic assumption that "these days" are somehow incapable of fostering well-intentioned rhetoric.

kbenson 9y ago
I would say another prerequisite is allowing that you might have misinterpreted the other party, and exploring what they said that you disagree with before assuming you know all the details of their stance, or whether what you think is their position is actually their position. That's what confused me about the following, if I'm interpreting it correctly: > But in general social contexts, there are vastly different rules. When it comes to dealing with possibly distasteful words or actions, then the safest assumption is that the speaker means what he says (walks like a duck...) I would say the safest assumption is to assume as little as possible initially, and try to dig out the details. Assuming they mean what they say is always problematic because you are assuming they mean what you interpreted them as saying, when in reality they may mean what they intended to express. And lest someone say that's uncommon, I find that it's at least in part true of the vast majority of positions I don't agree with here when solicit more details from the other party. Edit: Cleaned up for clarity
- dcow 9y ago
  Exactly this. I prefer to "assume no evil" because in my experience, at large, humans are not trying to be assholes to each other and genuinely want what's best for everyone. Or at least it's pretty depressing to operate under the oppossing worldview. After gaining more context then fine, declare evil where it does exist, but don't assume such off the bat.

jancsika 9y ago

> Anyone should be allowed to question and explore a topic without having to issue trigger warnings or generally be expected to manage the "visceral" response their questions might evoke from a bystander observing the discussion or even the participants. That's a non-sequitur. The author is a researcher responding to statements he read/heard from a justice who isn't an expert in that particular field. His main point is the premises underlying the justice's questions reveal a misconception, quite apart from the justice's intent. He's also addressing a general audience in a newspaper, not the Supreme Court, so his intent to clarify misconceptions without regard to the Supreme Court justice's method of inquiry is perfectly reasonable. Furthermore, each argument the author puts forward is not a "visceral response", but instead is supported by links to research. The only thing that could conceivably be different if the quoted justice were, say, Ginsburg, is the author writing a clause opining that she was probably playing devil's advocate. But to shoehorn "trigger warnings", "identity politics", and false labels of bigotry into that discussion is as silly as talking about how the Undertaker threw Mankind off Hell In A Cell, and plummeted 16 ft through an announcer’s table.

dcow 9y ago
I'm supporting the parent comment not responding to the article. Sorry if that's not clear.
- jancsika 9y ago
  I thought the parent commenter was describing a conflict between the interests of the court and the interests of the researcher. That may be a very narrow subset of the more egregious problems you mentioned, but it's a narrow subset that doesn't share most of the dangers of ideological echo chambers. If Eric McGhee and Justice Alito sat shared a train ride, I have no doubt they'd leave knowing more about each other's field than when they started. Replace them with two HN commenters who started out calling each other a bigot and an SJW, respectively, and I doubt they'd learn anything.

cirgue 9y ago

> reducing that exploration to a proxy for your worldview and consequently making character judgements or finding a way to get offended to the point where the identity politics card gets played The problem with the internet is that you only get one comment to say who you are and what you believe. No one knows what else you think about the world, no one knows if you're trolling or for real, and no one can see you as a flesh-and-blood person with a perspective distinct from others unless they go out of their way to. They just see a string of text in among a bunch of other strings of text and react to it.

sukilot 9y ago

Why do "identity-politics"-politics people drag "identity-politics" into every conversation?

jshevek 9y ago

Historically, it seemed to me that many teachers (at all levels) took pains to prepare students to handle disagreement in a healthy way. More recently, it seems that our culture has changed, and that students are being not just indulged, but even encouraged to respond in the unfortunate manner that you describe.