4 ms·
In my opinion the strength of HN in this regard is that it is both a "sjw cesspool" and a "haven for alt-right" Such labels are a part and parcel of in-group/o
by stcredzero 7y ago
In my opinion the strength of HN in this regard is that it is both a "sjw cesspool" and a "haven for alt-right"
Such labels are a part and parcel of in-group/out-group psychology. In 2019, by analogy, we should all be wary when people are starting to probe those "ports." I'm pretty sure that I've been seen as both by different people at different times, though recently on HN I've been spending a lot of energy defending a particular principle. Going way back, I'd been pre-judged as a woo-woo hippy, a yuppie, and all sorts of different things since.
If we take a step back and look at the broader arc of history, what we have to be wary of are narratives which attempt to paint entire groups of people as morally inferior threats. (For a variety of reasons, including world view.) These narratives always precede the great evils of history. These narratives always deserve great skepticism -- we should always "follow the money" and see who benefits from the pushing of the narrative. We should ask who stands to gain power.
- Causality1 7y agoYes. One of the most wearying things about the modern web is having to always tailor your comments and arguments to whatever atmosphere is going on at the moment, particularly when you're forced to constantly use analogies to get around reactionary biases. For example, if the current discussion is circle-jerking about how oppressed men/women/blacks/whites are, you end up having to frame any defense or problem relating to the disfavored group in terms of the favored group just to avoid getting downvoted to oblivion. You can never argue on principle, you have to put it in terms of what/who people like at the moment. If you don't, you get labeled as a member of or "on the team" of the disfavored group and summarily dismissed.