6 ms·

Don't want to be political on HN but I see lot of parallels between now and then. A plague effected region, ruled by conservative parties, opposing science and

Don't want to be political on HN but I see lot of parallels between now and then. A plague effected region, ruled by conservative parties, opposing science and logic in the name of religion or freedom. persecution of people who either look or do something different from their own. Printing press helped in spreading both lies and truth. Now a days, mainstream media and social media is being used to spread all kinds of gibberish. I won't be surprised if our own version of witch hunts starts soon, either in the name of nationalism or something else. Sorry about the rant

ascotan 6y ago
Witch hunts have never actually gone away they just changed form.
- fuzzfactor 6y ago
  Well you still can't fix stupid, and superstition has always been an indicator of stupid. But a little superstition can be fun, after all my own grandmother was a fortune teller herself. >As a historian who studies medieval magic, I’m fascinated by how a coterie of church and state authorities conspired to develop and promote this new concept of witchcraft for their own purposes. The rest of us should pay more attention to other ways the church and state authorities still develop and promote other unsuitable concepts to the disadvantage of their subjects. Authoritarianism can put a disadvantageous twist on just about anything it comes into contact with. Blindly following authority for conformity's sake tends to perpetuate and amplify an authority's residual unresolved stupidity, which we all have at least a bit of even when it started out to be just a little fun or tradition in some way. It's difficult enough to pass worthwhile findings of the millennia from one generation to the next, and one reason things should be continuously questioned is to focus on the difference between unsubstantiated superstition and merely outdated or historical concepts as the bulk of mankind's knowledge is stewarded into the future. There's a lot of needles in that haystack. The university is supposed to be the meeting place between the bulk of the traditional knowledge being passed on, and many new findings being validated and developed. Other institutions do this too, sometimes on a larger scale with narrower focus. Some of these are more academically oriented and intersect with academia more than others. Traditional knowledge should be (re)validated as you go along too. It takes a lot of questioning to accurately identify the stupid stuff that should no longer be passed on as acceptable. During those times when questioning is supressed, or development laboratories not available, it would seem the most risky for human progress to be stalled or reversed. Some people are anti-progress anyway, for both real and superstitious reasons. In the painting of the 14th Century lecture hall at the University of Bologna, this does not look like the kind of environment where questions over unvalidatable teachings could be enthusiastically entertained. Likely somewhat familiar with those who attend university far from Italy half a millennium later. But at this time isn't this virtually indistinguishable from a religious teaching session where the intention was mastery of texts and concepts intended to never be questioned except under severe penalty? Today's institutions, universities, and corporations are often still striving to be as legendary in the same traditional way, when they focus on eminence & authoritarianism over skepticism, with each elevation moving an individual one step further beyond doubts which could challenge the eminence hierarchy. These are the ones more subject to actions or inactions based on unfounded superstition to some extent, and can not be easily corrected from one generation to the next. And one of the reasons people still say you can't fix stupid. If you don't constantly scrutinize authorities for harmful superstitions, you could eventually end up with a real witch hunt where some kind of heads do roll in some way.
  - dennis_jeeves 6y ago
    >It's difficult enough to pass worthwhile findings of the millennia from one generation to the next, This observation of yours is indeed a very astute one. I have come to the same conclusion. The underlying reason for this, as you rightly pointed out is stupidity. History repeats. Teaching history will not help.
- dennis_jeeves 6y ago
  >Witch hunts have never actually gone away they just changed form. You are bang on. Anybody who has observed/read past occurrences of similar phenomenon will tell you that this is a modern version of the witch hunt.
CryptoPunk 6y ago
>>persecution of people who either look or do something different from their own. Who is being persecuted now? The Cancel Culture is much more a modern corollary to witch hunts than anything conservatives are doing. Conservatives exhibit witch-hunting tendencies to some extent, in relation to liberals, where they promote unhinged conspiracy theories about them trying to subjucate the masses. But these conservatism inspired forms of persecution are much less pronounced than something like Cancel Culture, as they are not being perpetrated by people who control the commanding heights of the cultural landscape.
- krustyburger 6y ago
  Ascribing the status of a capital noun to “cancel culture” is something reactionaries have been doing to try to paint all of their (many) ideological foes into the same category. The use of this term is an effort to distract from the fact that the vast majority of the celebrities who have been “cancelled” have actually victimized others or in other ways taken actions that were offensive or worse. In short, the only people who believe in a monolithic “Cancel Culture” are those who have spent too much time absorbing right wing talking points.
  - CryptoPunk 6y ago
    Why would "reactionaries", which is a term very popular among Marxist types to describe those opposed to radical left causes, try to paint Cancel Culture in negative terms, if it did not have a heavy ideological slant? >>The use of this term is an effort to distract from the fact that the vast majority of the celebrities who have been “cancelled” have actually victimized others or in other ways taken actions that were offensive or worse. Criticizing Cancel Culture does not imply that one believes celebrities targeted by it haven't done bad things. It implies that the reaction is disproportionate and being pushed from a place of ideological extremism. These unfair and disingenuous characterizations of critics is another characteristic of Cancel Culture. It has very hostile/sanctimonious ingroup/out-group dynamics, with a lot of conspiracy theories being attributed to the out-group.
    - 6y ago
dennis_jeeves 6y ago
>Don't want to be political on HN but I see lot of parallels between now and then. The things is that (unfortunately) even heath/medicine is very political, so it is fair to bring it up.

ascotan 6y ago

Witch hunts have never actually gone away they just changed form.

fuzzfactor 6y ago
Well you still can't fix stupid, and superstition has always been an indicator of stupid. But a little superstition can be fun, after all my own grandmother was a fortune teller herself. >As a historian who studies medieval magic, I’m fascinated by how a coterie of church and state authorities conspired to develop and promote this new concept of witchcraft for their own purposes. The rest of us should pay more attention to other ways the church and state authorities still develop and promote other unsuitable concepts to the disadvantage of their subjects. Authoritarianism can put a disadvantageous twist on just about anything it comes into contact with. Blindly following authority for conformity's sake tends to perpetuate and amplify an authority's residual unresolved stupidity, which we all have at least a bit of even when it started out to be just a little fun or tradition in some way. It's difficult enough to pass worthwhile findings of the millennia from one generation to the next, and one reason things should be continuously questioned is to focus on the difference between unsubstantiated superstition and merely outdated or historical concepts as the bulk of mankind's knowledge is stewarded into the future. There's a lot of needles in that haystack. The university is supposed to be the meeting place between the bulk of the traditional knowledge being passed on, and many new findings being validated and developed. Other institutions do this too, sometimes on a larger scale with narrower focus. Some of these are more academically oriented and intersect with academia more than others. Traditional knowledge should be (re)validated as you go along too. It takes a lot of questioning to accurately identify the stupid stuff that should no longer be passed on as acceptable. During those times when questioning is supressed, or development laboratories not available, it would seem the most risky for human progress to be stalled or reversed. Some people are anti-progress anyway, for both real and superstitious reasons. In the painting of the 14th Century lecture hall at the University of Bologna, this does not look like the kind of environment where questions over unvalidatable teachings could be enthusiastically entertained. Likely somewhat familiar with those who attend university far from Italy half a millennium later. But at this time isn't this virtually indistinguishable from a religious teaching session where the intention was mastery of texts and concepts intended to never be questioned except under severe penalty? Today's institutions, universities, and corporations are often still striving to be as legendary in the same traditional way, when they focus on eminence & authoritarianism over skepticism, with each elevation moving an individual one step further beyond doubts which could challenge the eminence hierarchy. These are the ones more subject to actions or inactions based on unfounded superstition to some extent, and can not be easily corrected from one generation to the next. And one of the reasons people still say you can't fix stupid. If you don't constantly scrutinize authorities for harmful superstitions, you could eventually end up with a real witch hunt where some kind of heads do roll in some way.
- dennis_jeeves 6y ago
  >It's difficult enough to pass worthwhile findings of the millennia from one generation to the next, This observation of yours is indeed a very astute one. I have come to the same conclusion. The underlying reason for this, as you rightly pointed out is stupidity. History repeats. Teaching history will not help.
dennis_jeeves 6y ago
>Witch hunts have never actually gone away they just changed form. You are bang on. Anybody who has observed/read past occurrences of similar phenomenon will tell you that this is a modern version of the witch hunt.

CryptoPunk 6y ago

>>persecution of people who either look or do something different from their own. Who is being persecuted now? The Cancel Culture is much more a modern corollary to witch hunts than anything conservatives are doing. Conservatives exhibit witch-hunting tendencies to some extent, in relation to liberals, where they promote unhinged conspiracy theories about them trying to subjucate the masses. But these conservatism inspired forms of persecution are much less pronounced than something like Cancel Culture, as they are not being perpetrated by people who control the commanding heights of the cultural landscape.

krustyburger 6y ago
Ascribing the status of a capital noun to “cancel culture” is something reactionaries have been doing to try to paint all of their (many) ideological foes into the same category. The use of this term is an effort to distract from the fact that the vast majority of the celebrities who have been “cancelled” have actually victimized others or in other ways taken actions that were offensive or worse. In short, the only people who believe in a monolithic “Cancel Culture” are those who have spent too much time absorbing right wing talking points.
- CryptoPunk 6y ago
  Why would "reactionaries", which is a term very popular among Marxist types to describe those opposed to radical left causes, try to paint Cancel Culture in negative terms, if it did not have a heavy ideological slant? >>The use of this term is an effort to distract from the fact that the vast majority of the celebrities who have been “cancelled” have actually victimized others or in other ways taken actions that were offensive or worse. Criticizing Cancel Culture does not imply that one believes celebrities targeted by it haven't done bad things. It implies that the reaction is disproportionate and being pushed from a place of ideological extremism. These unfair and disingenuous characterizations of critics is another characteristic of Cancel Culture. It has very hostile/sanctimonious ingroup/out-group dynamics, with a lot of conspiracy theories being attributed to the out-group.
  - 6y ago

dennis_jeeves 6y ago

>Don't want to be political on HN but I see lot of parallels between now and then. The things is that (unfortunately) even heath/medicine is very political, so it is fair to bring it up.