7 ms·

Could you give me some examples?

by Ma8ee 7y ago

bluntfang 7y ago
Gender issues and workplace diversity.
- sincerely 7y ago
  "Gender issues" and "workplace diversity" are vague topics, not "truths" or even specific ideas we can discuss.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - ctdonath 7y ago
    We all know what truths and specific ideas those terms encompass. Stating them brings a flurry of downvotes. Even pointing in their general direction gets downvoted.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
      People claiming that their ideas about those areas are "truths" can lead to a lot of downvotes, yes. Those people then claim that others are "suppressing the truth". They never seem to even consider the idea that their "truths" may in fact be mistaken.
      - coffee123 7y ago
        no even a raw fact, like pointing out the lack of female geniuses throughout history, leads to a flurry of anger and downvotes. For example, is it ok to point out the scientific research shows certain races have average lower IQ and smaller brains?
        SimbaOnSteroids 7y ago
        Well if you're pointing out these stats, I have to question your motive, because they're pretty piss-poor stats to try and point out because of the context they exist in that explain the observation. Both of the things yous listed have very good contextual explanations, Science being a boys club, IQ tests having cultural bias', interbreeding with Neanderthal and Denisovans after the exit from Africa. Basically those stats are BS that are used to push a narrative supported by the people in society that are such losers they don't have anything to actually be proud of so make up BS to feel better about how bad they are at being a human.
        coffee123 7y ago
        My motive is an obsession with biology and a relentless search for the truth. Same as Darwin, he wrote a lot about this stuff. He would have been flagged and banned on a place like hacker news. You people have no decency in my eyes.
      - larnmar 7y ago
        Pretty much every comment on every subject comes down to someone claiming that their ideas are truths, though, and not every comment gets downvoted so much.
        Kaiyou 7y ago
        Not every wrong idea has a history of being contradicted so frequently, either.
666lumberjack 7y ago
Pointing out the environmental impact of having biological children is always unpopular here. A lot of HN-ers are pretty attached to the 'three kids and a white picket fence' lifescript. Interestingly advocates of veganism (which has a similarly massive impact on your carbon footprint) are much more welcome, but I guess for most people the drive to reproduce is more inherent that the desire to eat meat.
- verylittlemeat 7y ago
  If the solution to a hard problem is that obvious and people aren't doing it then it's not really a solution and/or you haven't correctly identified the problem. Those comments are unpopular because most people can see they're just smug self righteous twitter tier mic drops.
  - 666lumberjack 7y ago
    Maybe I wasn't clear; I'm not talking about comments on random threads about climate change suggesting it could be solved easily if people just didn't have kids. I don't think it's unreasonable, though, to suggest not having biological children if someone asks how they could lower their carbon footprint.
  - firethief 7y ago
    > If the solution to a hard problem is that obvious and people aren't doing it then it's not really a solution and/or you haven't correctly identified the problem. I don't see how this is compatible with the observed reality that individuals make choices that are not best for society (whether due to rational self-interest/incomplete information/behavioral factors).
    - rdiddly 7y ago
      I suppose you could say there's room for that under redefining the problem, like "The real problem is that people refuse to employ known solutions to those problems."
buboard 7y ago
Just turn on showdead in your settings. I also see very often comments that have died for no apparent reason (they are not inflammatory).
- Jamwinner 7y ago
  I find anything critisizing SV or YC company gets immediate downvotes, as do most critical of china, israel, and saudi arabia (or any company funded by them, lookin at you softbank). While there are more Indian, UK, and Canadian commenters who will actually argue, they seldom downvote. Oddly, most americans will go above and beyond to disparge their own nation more than any other (free speech is empowering!). More people lately seem to downvote out of disagreement rather than to keep a thread in check. I thing requiring a comment to downvote would be a huge step forward in the quality of discourse. This is not to pass judgement on any subset on the HN or general communities. Just apparent trends that have I have noticed. I could very well be victim to my own (american) bias.
  - balfirevic 7y ago
    > More people lately seem to downvote out of disagreement rather than to keep a thread in check. Downvoting out of disagreement has always been endorsed on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171 You may disagree that it is a good choice, but it is not new phenomenon.
- Kye 7y ago
  That typically means they're shadowbanned. I can usually figure out why by a quick look at their comment history. Even people who like to toss bombs throw the occasional dud.
mistermann 7y ago
Advocating for Nationalism is a typical example. Or restrictive immigration policies. These seem to be considered by many to be synonymous with racism.
- Ma8ee 7y ago
  Can you give some examples where those "truths" have been downvoted?
  - mistermann 7y ago
    Unironically, my very comment above (as well as others in this thread, the topic of which is heresy!) is gathering downvotes as we speak, despite it being technically correct. Normally this would bother me, but this time I find it pleasing because it illustrates the point. My intuition is suggesting to me that your inclusion of "truths" in quotation marks suggests you are primed to expect me to reply with some things that I believe to be true, but that are false. Obviously I am speculating, but I find thinking about the nature of communication in fine detail to be extremely interesting. Also, pardon the delay in reply as I'm quite sure my account is flagged and rate-limited for participating in flame wars, or more specifically, holding incorrect beliefs in flame wars. I believe this latter point because it takes two to tango in a flame war, and if you pay attention when warnings are handed out for such offenses here on HN, you may notice a pattern of the person receiving the warning is the one who holds the heretical view, despite many people being participants. I say this mostly as just an interesting aside, but I believe it does to some degree fairly illustrate the possibility of bias that exists on HN, including at the moderation level. Since the degree to which my speculation is true is not knowable, casual dismissals must not be based on pure logic, but rather a mixture of conscious logic and subconscious heuristics. Sometimes what's so easy to see in others, is near impossible to see in ourselves - such is the nature of the human mind. As for some examples of what I'm talking about: Here is a person taking the definition of Fascism and applying it to Nationalism: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21504768 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21504768 Here is a person who seems to believe they can both read minds and predict the future (but apparently can not defend the facts they have learned during those exercises): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21501182 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21501182 Here is a person who believes that it is impossible to love one nation more than others. Knowing such a thing would also require mind reading abilities: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21501200 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21501200 More mind reading, and the stating of opinions as if they were facts (this is very common): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21500900 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21500900 I mean, on one hand this is just people being people, nothing to lose any sleep over. On the other hand, this isn't /r/politics - is it asking too much that we strive for a higher standard of thinking and discourse here on HN? And furthermore, it might be worth considering if this sort of behavior might be counter-productive to the speaker's goals in more way than one.
spumoni 7y ago
Anything seen to be advocating specifically for the benefit of white people is often seen as heresy around here, though there are pockets of positive sentiment.
- coffee123 7y ago
  yeah you are only allowed to fight for the benefit of jews (richest ethnic group) and people brought by big business to lower salaries
cm2012 7y ago
Saying anything positive about online advertising is a ticket to downvotes.
swebs 7y ago
Try posting Rushton and Jensen and see what happens.

Could you give me some examples?

by Ma8ee 7y ago

Could you give me some examples?

bluntfang 7y ago

Gender issues and workplace diversity.

sincerely 7y ago
"Gender issues" and "workplace diversity" are vague topics, not "truths" or even specific ideas we can discuss.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- ctdonath 7y ago
  We all know what truths and specific ideas those terms encompass. Stating them brings a flurry of downvotes. Even pointing in their general direction gets downvoted.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    People claiming that their ideas about those areas are "truths" can lead to a lot of downvotes, yes. Those people then claim that others are "suppressing the truth". They never seem to even consider the idea that their "truths" may in fact be mistaken.
    - coffee123 7y ago
      no even a raw fact, like pointing out the lack of female geniuses throughout history, leads to a flurry of anger and downvotes. For example, is it ok to point out the scientific research shows certain races have average lower IQ and smaller brains?
      - SimbaOnSteroids 7y ago
        Well if you're pointing out these stats, I have to question your motive, because they're pretty piss-poor stats to try and point out because of the context they exist in that explain the observation. Both of the things yous listed have very good contextual explanations, Science being a boys club, IQ tests having cultural bias', interbreeding with Neanderthal and Denisovans after the exit from Africa. Basically those stats are BS that are used to push a narrative supported by the people in society that are such losers they don't have anything to actually be proud of so make up BS to feel better about how bad they are at being a human.
        coffee123 7y ago
        My motive is an obsession with biology and a relentless search for the truth. Same as Darwin, he wrote a lot about this stuff. He would have been flagged and banned on a place like hacker news. You people have no decency in my eyes.
    - larnmar 7y ago
      Pretty much every comment on every subject comes down to someone claiming that their ideas are truths, though, and not every comment gets downvoted so much.
      - Kaiyou 7y ago
        Not every wrong idea has a history of being contradicted so frequently, either.

666lumberjack 7y ago

Pointing out the environmental impact of having biological children is always unpopular here. A lot of HN-ers are pretty attached to the 'three kids and a white picket fence' lifescript. Interestingly advocates of veganism (which has a similarly massive impact on your carbon footprint) are much more welcome, but I guess for most people the drive to reproduce is more inherent that the desire to eat meat.

verylittlemeat 7y ago
If the solution to a hard problem is that obvious and people aren't doing it then it's not really a solution and/or you haven't correctly identified the problem. Those comments are unpopular because most people can see they're just smug self righteous twitter tier mic drops.
- 666lumberjack 7y ago
  Maybe I wasn't clear; I'm not talking about comments on random threads about climate change suggesting it could be solved easily if people just didn't have kids. I don't think it's unreasonable, though, to suggest not having biological children if someone asks how they could lower their carbon footprint.
- firethief 7y ago
  > If the solution to a hard problem is that obvious and people aren't doing it then it's not really a solution and/or you haven't correctly identified the problem. I don't see how this is compatible with the observed reality that individuals make choices that are not best for society (whether due to rational self-interest/incomplete information/behavioral factors).
  - rdiddly 7y ago
    I suppose you could say there's room for that under redefining the problem, like "The real problem is that people refuse to employ known solutions to those problems."

buboard 7y ago

Just turn on showdead in your settings. I also see very often comments that have died for no apparent reason (they are not inflammatory).

Jamwinner 7y ago
I find anything critisizing SV or YC company gets immediate downvotes, as do most critical of china, israel, and saudi arabia (or any company funded by them, lookin at you softbank). While there are more Indian, UK, and Canadian commenters who will actually argue, they seldom downvote. Oddly, most americans will go above and beyond to disparge their own nation more than any other (free speech is empowering!). More people lately seem to downvote out of disagreement rather than to keep a thread in check. I thing requiring a comment to downvote would be a huge step forward in the quality of discourse. This is not to pass judgement on any subset on the HN or general communities. Just apparent trends that have I have noticed. I could very well be victim to my own (american) bias.
- balfirevic 7y ago
  > More people lately seem to downvote out of disagreement rather than to keep a thread in check. Downvoting out of disagreement has always been endorsed on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171 You may disagree that it is a good choice, but it is not new phenomenon.
Kye 7y ago
That typically means they're shadowbanned. I can usually figure out why by a quick look at their comment history. Even people who like to toss bombs throw the occasional dud.

mistermann 7y ago

Advocating for Nationalism is a typical example. Or restrictive immigration policies. These seem to be considered by many to be synonymous with racism.

Ma8ee 7y ago
Can you give some examples where those "truths" have been downvoted?
- mistermann 7y ago
  Unironically, my very comment above (as well as others in this thread, the topic of which is heresy!) is gathering downvotes as we speak, despite it being technically correct. Normally this would bother me, but this time I find it pleasing because it illustrates the point. My intuition is suggesting to me that your inclusion of "truths" in quotation marks suggests you are primed to expect me to reply with some things that I believe to be true, but that are false. Obviously I am speculating, but I find thinking about the nature of communication in fine detail to be extremely interesting. Also, pardon the delay in reply as I'm quite sure my account is flagged and rate-limited for participating in flame wars, or more specifically, holding incorrect beliefs in flame wars. I believe this latter point because it takes two to tango in a flame war, and if you pay attention when warnings are handed out for such offenses here on HN, you may notice a pattern of the person receiving the warning is the one who holds the heretical view, despite many people being participants. I say this mostly as just an interesting aside, but I believe it does to some degree fairly illustrate the possibility of bias that exists on HN, including at the moderation level. Since the degree to which my speculation is true is not knowable, casual dismissals must not be based on pure logic, but rather a mixture of conscious logic and subconscious heuristics. Sometimes what's so easy to see in others, is near impossible to see in ourselves - such is the nature of the human mind. As for some examples of what I'm talking about: Here is a person taking the definition of Fascism and applying it to Nationalism: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21504768 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21504768 Here is a person who seems to believe they can both read minds and predict the future (but apparently can not defend the facts they have learned during those exercises): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21501182 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21501182 Here is a person who believes that it is impossible to love one nation more than others. Knowing such a thing would also require mind reading abilities: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21501200 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21501200 More mind reading, and the stating of opinions as if they were facts (this is very common): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21500900 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21500900 I mean, on one hand this is just people being people, nothing to lose any sleep over. On the other hand, this isn't /r/politics - is it asking too much that we strive for a higher standard of thinking and discourse here on HN? And furthermore, it might be worth considering if this sort of behavior might be counter-productive to the speaker's goals in more way than one.

spumoni 7y ago

Anything seen to be advocating specifically for the benefit of white people is often seen as heresy around here, though there are pockets of positive sentiment.

coffee123 7y ago
yeah you are only allowed to fight for the benefit of jews (richest ethnic group) and people brought by big business to lower salaries

cm2012 7y ago

Saying anything positive about online advertising is a ticket to downvotes.

swebs 7y ago

Try posting Rushton and Jensen and see what happens.