4 ms·

>Why don't contributors openly reject this stupid system (not the rules themselves, which sound fine) and unseat these self-proclaimed procurators is beyond me.

by ppf 6y ago

>Why don't contributors openly reject this stupid system (not the rules themselves, which sound fine) and unseat these self-proclaimed procurators is beyond me. Have you tried doing that? How do you like being hounded out of your job, and probably your profession, by a braying mob? Edit: I also find it bitterly ironic that the Progressive Bay Area-centric Hacker News is now saying how bad all of this is, after being the complicit champions of it.

Hitton 6y ago
HN users are not monolith. Probably most of us aren't in the Bay Area, many are not even from the USA. Many people here wouldn't give a single fuck about some twitter mob because they live in countries where people are more tolerant of opposite views (and finding out your acquaintance votes other party will get him friendly jab, not excommunication).
- TheRealDunkirk 6y ago
  > and finding out your acquaintance votes other party will get him friendly jab, not excommunication I've long argued that the US should have lots of parties, and adopt pluralistic voting, but then I stopped when it seemed to me that countries that already have this system don't have demonstrably better political outcomes. But your comment pushes me back to the other side of the argument now. It occurs to me that if we didn't have only 2 sides, practically, maybe policy discussions wouldn't be so damnably acrimonious and win-lose.
  - ghaff 6y ago
    The main problem that arises with large multi-party systems is that the ruling party needs to form a coalition to govern and that may require cozying up to some extreme small party and giving them influence outsize of their numbers.
    - agarden 6y ago
      It seems to me that the two-party system in the United States is, practically speaking, the same thing. Within each major party there are smaller caucuses, such as the Freedom Caucus, which are more extreme than the party as a whole and exercise outsized influence because the larger party needs them to maintain its big tent. "Big tent" == coalition.
  - swiley 6y ago
    Sweden and Switzerland seem pretty great IMO. I think the trick is proportional voting instead of first past the post.
- capableweb 6y ago
  > where people are more tolerant of opposite views For now yeah but the tides are changing everywhere. Europe (and the US) fought facism, so we had a period of time where politics where mostly shades of purple/blue/red. Now facism is on the rise again, and we're seeing that across Europe, from Spain with Vox to Sweden with "Sweden Democrats". With the rise of these parties, you're seeing more and more of excommunication, as being tolerant of intolerance will only lead to more intolerance, not tolerance.
  - ppf 6y ago
    I love this argument, just because it completely flips reality on its head. The intolerance that is being discussed is that of the Progressive US Left, who cannot tolerate any dissention from the current state of "politically correct" (here I use it's original definition). What you are describing is the reaction to it. It's a masterstroke of political reasoning, when you find a way to define your own shortfalls as stemming from the "other side". Edit: I should add, it's amusing while it doesn't affect me, but the ramifications are horrifying.
    - jeromegv 6y ago
      You're talking like the leader of the right in the USA was tolerant of any different viewpoint than his own viewpoint around him. He's publicly rejected and shit on people very publicly that were his allies/staff for years the moment they have a dissenting opinion. Come on, not a left or right thing.
      - ppf 6y ago
        You're talking like the current president of the USA came out of nowhere, and was not at all a public expression of dissatisfaction with the status quo. The president doesn't need to accept dissent from his staff. Just hypothetically, if Obama's health secretary said that being transgender was largely a mental illness, or his head of domestic policy said that we need to close the southern border, does he need to tolerate that? Just to be very clear - those are completely hypothetical - I am not sure what actual "dissent" caused Trump to fire his various staff members, but it is unrelated.
- ppf 6y ago
  Fortunately, I am one of those people. I also despair as I watch the tendrils of US-style partisanship spread here.
- everdrive 6y ago
  >HN users are not monolith. This is correct. Quite often, a group which is portrayed as hypocritical is not hypocritical at all: rather there are just many opinions within the group, and they conflict with each other. As you've said, the [group] is not monolith.

by ppf 6y ago

Hitton 6y ago

HN users are not monolith. Probably most of us aren't in the Bay Area, many are not even from the USA. Many people here wouldn't give a single fuck about some twitter mob because they live in countries where people are more tolerant of opposite views (and finding out your acquaintance votes other party will get him friendly jab, not excommunication).

TheRealDunkirk 6y ago
> and finding out your acquaintance votes other party will get him friendly jab, not excommunication I've long argued that the US should have lots of parties, and adopt pluralistic voting, but then I stopped when it seemed to me that countries that already have this system don't have demonstrably better political outcomes. But your comment pushes me back to the other side of the argument now. It occurs to me that if we didn't have only 2 sides, practically, maybe policy discussions wouldn't be so damnably acrimonious and win-lose.
- ghaff 6y ago
  The main problem that arises with large multi-party systems is that the ruling party needs to form a coalition to govern and that may require cozying up to some extreme small party and giving them influence outsize of their numbers.
  - agarden 6y ago
    It seems to me that the two-party system in the United States is, practically speaking, the same thing. Within each major party there are smaller caucuses, such as the Freedom Caucus, which are more extreme than the party as a whole and exercise outsized influence because the larger party needs them to maintain its big tent. "Big tent" == coalition.
- swiley 6y ago
  Sweden and Switzerland seem pretty great IMO. I think the trick is proportional voting instead of first past the post.
capableweb 6y ago
> where people are more tolerant of opposite views For now yeah but the tides are changing everywhere. Europe (and the US) fought facism, so we had a period of time where politics where mostly shades of purple/blue/red. Now facism is on the rise again, and we're seeing that across Europe, from Spain with Vox to Sweden with "Sweden Democrats". With the rise of these parties, you're seeing more and more of excommunication, as being tolerant of intolerance will only lead to more intolerance, not tolerance.
- ppf 6y ago
  I love this argument, just because it completely flips reality on its head. The intolerance that is being discussed is that of the Progressive US Left, who cannot tolerate any dissention from the current state of "politically correct" (here I use it's original definition). What you are describing is the reaction to it. It's a masterstroke of political reasoning, when you find a way to define your own shortfalls as stemming from the "other side". Edit: I should add, it's amusing while it doesn't affect me, but the ramifications are horrifying.
  - jeromegv 6y ago
    You're talking like the leader of the right in the USA was tolerant of any different viewpoint than his own viewpoint around him. He's publicly rejected and shit on people very publicly that were his allies/staff for years the moment they have a dissenting opinion. Come on, not a left or right thing.
    - ppf 6y ago
      You're talking like the current president of the USA came out of nowhere, and was not at all a public expression of dissatisfaction with the status quo. The president doesn't need to accept dissent from his staff. Just hypothetically, if Obama's health secretary said that being transgender was largely a mental illness, or his head of domestic policy said that we need to close the southern border, does he need to tolerate that? Just to be very clear - those are completely hypothetical - I am not sure what actual "dissent" caused Trump to fire his various staff members, but it is unrelated.
ppf 6y ago
Fortunately, I am one of those people. I also despair as I watch the tendrils of US-style partisanship spread here.
everdrive 6y ago
>HN users are not monolith. This is correct. Quite often, a group which is portrayed as hypocritical is not hypocritical at all: rather there are just many opinions within the group, and they conflict with each other. As you've said, the [group] is not monolith.