5 ms·

>It’s very hard to understand why As republican former secretary of the interior James Watt put it, “Why worry about the environment when the second coming is

by natch 6y ago

>It’s very hard to understand why As republican former secretary of the interior James Watt put it, “Why worry about the environment when the second coming is at hand?”

dang 6y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24111740 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24111740.
- akiselev 6y ago
  Just curious, why? Is it a tactic to quarantine content that has potential to start flame wars from other content?
  - dang 6y ago
    Basically yes.
- natch 6y ago
  Thanks for noting the detachment. I also saw your reply acknowledging the summary of the possible reasons. Not to argue or draw you out necessarily, but just want to share some thoughts. We (society, human civilization) have incurred a lot of damage over the decades from anti-science motivations. If we can't call this out on HN, I don't know where we can call it out. Also it feels right to me that names should be named. Names of political parties, names of religions, etc. I do understand the need to keep things, especially when flame wars are likely, from drifting off into divisive and toxic discussions, in order to keep this a healthy discussion. Maybe leaving out the naming of names is the cost to do this. Somehow, these forces need to be called out. Maybe this is not the place. That answer seems too facile, though. Or maybe there are better ways. Instead of mentioning, focusing on, and calling out the negative, I have noticed some people simply highlight the positive alternative view, never acknowledging the (imho) toxic one. This is an interesting approach but I question how far it has gotten us, given… look around at the world today, to get my point. Again my intent is not to argue with you about this, but just to share thoughts. I am questioning myself, whether I should become one of those people who always just ignores the bad, and only talks about the positive other options. I also realize there are better and worse ways to inject opinions into a discussion. I think I'm not alone in struggling with this. Feedback welcome but not expected. Thanks.
  - dang 6y ago
    The comment was generic religious/political flamebait and unsubstantive. I'm not criticizing you or your good intentions, just explaining how it externally appears from an HN moderation point of view. Any place the phrase "calling out" appears, it's likely that the desired spirit of this site (i.e. intellectual curiosity) has been left behind. That phrase is the flagship of internet indignation, which is not compatible with curious conversation. There may be a bit of a misunderstanding though. The intended style of discussion here is not about ignoring what's bad or focusing only on what's good. It's not a question of what you're focusing on, but how you're focusing on it, and what state a comment shifts the conversation into (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=%22expected%20value%22%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...). There are certain predictable things about internet forum dynamics; one is that calling-out-style comments that don't add much information tend to take threads into simplistic, overheated states. One essential quality of what we're looking for on HN is unpredictability (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=can%27t%20predict%20from%20sequence%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...). https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - natch 6y ago
      Thank you for the reply. Good points, and the comments you linked really help as well.
      - dang 6y ago
        Appreciated! (You have no idea how much!)
busterarm 6y ago
That's not even close to the Republican mainstream now though. The "Christian Right" is a relic that died during the first Dubya administration. It's nothing more than a boogeyman for progressives now.
- NotSammyHagar 6y ago
  That doesn't seem right. All we hear about is the evangelical support of Trump is unwavering even though he personally violates their expectations of behavior. They see him rewarding them in terms of laws, federal judges, supporting their desires and also the perhaps more complicated support for feeling of white people's power and privilege being under siege.
  - busterarm 6y ago
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/mar/03/james-dobson-focus-on-the-family https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/ma... It was pronounced dead loads of times between '08 & '16 and this is just one. You see it mentioned, because as I previously said it's a boogeyman used to scare us liberals. You're being manipulated.
    - NotSammyHagar 6y ago
      Sorry, I don't get the manipulation or Boogeyman here. Is there no Christian right or they have no power, or ALEC doesn't exist or what?
- tmpz22 6y ago
  Then why is DT still talking about how biden is an ungodly man who is going to, and this is an exact quote, "hurt god".
  - busterarm 6y ago
    He's a 74 year old speaking to other 70+ year olds there. Talk to some younger Republicans, even Christian ones, who aren't in your social filter bubble. The whole Falwell family has long been disgraced and ignored. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Majority#1988 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Majority#1988 If you scroll down and do some followup reading you'll see that his plans to revive the organization failed miserably.
jaynetics 6y ago
I can't find a source for this quote and it slightly contradicts other things he said: https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/James_G._Watt https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/James_G._Watt
- natch 6y ago
  It was in the Washington Post at the time but I don’t know if I can find the link. Long time ago (Reagan era). Edit: Yes WaPo, May 24, 1981. Pre-www, so no link.

by natch 6y ago

>It’s very hard to understand why As republican former secretary of the interior James Watt put it, “Why worry about the environment when the second coming is at hand?”

dang 6y ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24111740 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24111740.

akiselev 6y ago
Just curious, why? Is it a tactic to quarantine content that has potential to start flame wars from other content?
- dang 6y ago
  Basically yes.
natch 6y ago
Thanks for noting the detachment. I also saw your reply acknowledging the summary of the possible reasons. Not to argue or draw you out necessarily, but just want to share some thoughts. We (society, human civilization) have incurred a lot of damage over the decades from anti-science motivations. If we can't call this out on HN, I don't know where we can call it out. Also it feels right to me that names should be named. Names of political parties, names of religions, etc. I do understand the need to keep things, especially when flame wars are likely, from drifting off into divisive and toxic discussions, in order to keep this a healthy discussion. Maybe leaving out the naming of names is the cost to do this. Somehow, these forces need to be called out. Maybe this is not the place. That answer seems too facile, though. Or maybe there are better ways. Instead of mentioning, focusing on, and calling out the negative, I have noticed some people simply highlight the positive alternative view, never acknowledging the (imho) toxic one. This is an interesting approach but I question how far it has gotten us, given… look around at the world today, to get my point. Again my intent is not to argue with you about this, but just to share thoughts. I am questioning myself, whether I should become one of those people who always just ignores the bad, and only talks about the positive other options. I also realize there are better and worse ways to inject opinions into a discussion. I think I'm not alone in struggling with this. Feedback welcome but not expected. Thanks.
- dang 6y ago
  The comment was generic religious/political flamebait and unsubstantive. I'm not criticizing you or your good intentions, just explaining how it externally appears from an HN moderation point of view. Any place the phrase "calling out" appears, it's likely that the desired spirit of this site (i.e. intellectual curiosity) has been left behind. That phrase is the flagship of internet indignation, which is not compatible with curious conversation. There may be a bit of a misunderstanding though. The intended style of discussion here is not about ignoring what's bad or focusing only on what's good. It's not a question of what you're focusing on, but how you're focusing on it, and what state a comment shifts the conversation into (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=%22expected%20value%22%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...). There are certain predictable things about internet forum dynamics; one is that calling-out-style comments that don't add much information tend to take threads into simplistic, overheated states. One essential quality of what we're looking for on HN is unpredictability (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=can%27t%20predict%20from%20sequence%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...). https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - natch 6y ago
    Thank you for the reply. Good points, and the comments you linked really help as well.
    - dang 6y ago
      Appreciated! (You have no idea how much!)

busterarm 6y ago

That's not even close to the Republican mainstream now though. The "Christian Right" is a relic that died during the first Dubya administration. It's nothing more than a boogeyman for progressives now.

NotSammyHagar 6y ago
That doesn't seem right. All we hear about is the evangelical support of Trump is unwavering even though he personally violates their expectations of behavior. They see him rewarding them in terms of laws, federal judges, supporting their desires and also the perhaps more complicated support for feeling of white people's power and privilege being under siege.
- busterarm 6y ago
  https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/mar/03/james-dobson-focus-on-the-family https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/ma... It was pronounced dead loads of times between '08 & '16 and this is just one. You see it mentioned, because as I previously said it's a boogeyman used to scare us liberals. You're being manipulated.
  - NotSammyHagar 6y ago
    Sorry, I don't get the manipulation or Boogeyman here. Is there no Christian right or they have no power, or ALEC doesn't exist or what?
tmpz22 6y ago
Then why is DT still talking about how biden is an ungodly man who is going to, and this is an exact quote, "hurt god".
- busterarm 6y ago
  He's a 74 year old speaking to other 70+ year olds there. Talk to some younger Republicans, even Christian ones, who aren't in your social filter bubble. The whole Falwell family has long been disgraced and ignored. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Majority#1988 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Majority#1988 If you scroll down and do some followup reading you'll see that his plans to revive the organization failed miserably.

jaynetics 6y ago

I can't find a source for this quote and it slightly contradicts other things he said: https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/James_G._Watt https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/James_G._Watt

natch 6y ago
It was in the Washington Post at the time but I don’t know if I can find the link. Long time ago (Reagan era). Edit: Yes WaPo, May 24, 1981. Pre-www, so no link.