4 ms·

As a society we need to make the decision to take the microphone away from people who are just plain wrong or stupid. If we just ignore them, they can't do any

• User23 7y ago
  As a society we are split roughly 50/50 on who is stupid and wrong, so this really just means “silence those who disagree with me.” Anecdotally, the hn community does have an obvious majority on most issues, including this one, but is still good about allowing dissenting opinions to be heard, because it is necessary for the mission of satisfying intellectual curiosity.
  • FussyZeus 7y ago
    If you don't understand or believe climate science at this point, it can no longer be written off as being uninformed. You are purposefully remaining ignorant and should be deemed unqualified to hold public office. There has to come a point where a consensus is so solid that continuing to play devils advocate is a disqualifying act. We know the planet is changing, and we know we are doing it. This is no longer a subject to be debated, end of.
  • grecy 7y ago
    At this point I think it's well understood that >90% of scientists and experts agree that climate change is a real thing and going to be a severe problem. It's not about "Those who disagree with me" it's "Those who disagree with widely accepted facts." and are causing real harm by doing so.
    • rhino369 7y ago
      That's a good reason to believe in climate change (and I think its even well north of 90%). But that isn't a reason to create climate blasphemy laws. Because the scientists could easily be wrong about a lot of it. History is littered with superseded theories in science. I went to a presentation of a tenured climate scientist from a good school, who gave a somewhat skeptical presentation on climate change. He didn't dispute that global warming is real or is man-made. He just thought the postive feedback loops were a lot stronger than IPCC concesuss estimated. But other professors from non-science disciplines came and read him the riot act during the Q/A portion. Being challenged is good. But some of the questions strongly implied he shouldn't publish anything challenging the status quo. That's bad.
      • grecy 7y ago
        Sure, we need to present both sides of the story. So >90% of coverage should be about what >90% of people think, and <10% of coverage should be what <10% of people think. Let's make it proportional.
      • 18pfsmt 7y ago
        Thomas Sowell, wrote a great book in 1995 about the phenomenon you describe. The Vision of the Anointed lays out this problematic tendency. It was quite prevalent 100 years ago as anxiety arose about the industrial revolution (radio, telephone, automobile), and labor moved from the farm (14hr days during half of the year) to the factory. “Yet a polemical tactic has developed which enables virtually any general statement, however true, to be flatly denied, simply because it is not 100 percent true in all circumstances...Even in the days of Stalin, to make a distinction between the Communist world and the free world was to invite sarcastic dismissals of this distinction, based upon particular inadequacies, injustices, or restrictions found in “the so-called ‘free world,’ ” as the intelligentsia often characterized it, which kept it from being 100 percent free, democratic, and just.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Vision_of_the_Anointed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Vision_of_the_Anointed
    • grandridge 7y ago
      Cite the science supporting your first line. You are just regurgitating platitudes. And if the 10% are good enough to be lumped into your sample size, why is their opinion not valid?
  • munk-a 7y ago
    Our society of popularity unfortunately means that it's not just "allowing dissenting opinions" but 'thought leaders' end up getting an outsized amount of attention. Some celebrities are smart - some have degrees in neuroscience... but I really don't care to hold their opinion over anyone else's.
  • deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
• rabidrat 7y ago
  When the percentage of 'wrong or stupid' people is low enough, say below 1%, I would agree. Maybe even 10%. But the number of people who are wrong or stupid in this way is still quite high; at least 25-30% in the US, possibly more who are wrong or stupid but keep quiet about it. You can personally ignore these people, but they are legally allowed to vote in every election and consume whatever they can afford and kill or burn most anything on their property. We ignore them systematically as a society to our own peril.
  • dionian 7y ago
    Are you saying the people saying we shouldn't give China free money à la TPP are the problem? Because you've basically undermined your whole argument from where I am sitting.
  • okmokmz 7y ago
    What is your alternative?
    • rabidrat 7y ago
      1. Stop disassociating with everyone whose opinions you disagree with. Include the "wrong and stupid" in your communities, as long as they're not toxic. 2. Learn about how people actually change their minds, instead of trying to coerce and shame them and then shunning them when they don't take your point of view instantly. 3. Be open-minded to the valid points they may have. Almost no one is 100% wrong, and you are not 100% right. But when you start from a "you're wrong and stupid" perspective, your audience digs in their heels deeper. 4. Coordinate memetic campaigns to provide an alternative viewpoint to people who might be on the verge of being taken in by the wrong and stupid. 5. Provide a safe harbor for people who might possibly change their minds. Recognize that by changing their worldview they may be shunned by their existing family, friends, and/or community. They need to know that if they join your worldview they're not going to be shamed for not joining it sooner.
  • grandridge 7y ago
    You don't see the irony in your statment