5 ms·

> other serious issues and without anti-vaccination beliefs This was redundant. Anti-vaccination “belief“ is a serious, mental, issue. Against HN rules, but i

> other serious issues and without anti-vaccination beliefs This was redundant. Anti-vaccination “belief“ is a serious, mental, issue. Against HN rules, but it’s time to stop being so easy on people who try to distort science and reality and call them for what it is. You cannot have a eye to eye conversation with anti-vacciners, flat-earthers, climate-change deniers, election-fraud believers and Trump supporters. The more leeway we give the more they try to win public opinion and damage our world.

ericd 6y ago
Really don't think being less tolerant is the answer here. It certainly doesn't help change minds, you're not going to force your beliefs on them.
- hunter2_ 6y ago
  Done right, being less tolerant of speech/behavior that can be detrimental to the common good does change minds for the better. Any "code of conduct" is precisely this: directly calling out detrimental behavior as vile with no tolerance for it. The fact that nearly half of voters in the United States support Trump does not change this.
  - hvdfhbj 6y ago
    How can you be sure that the censors will always be on the side of the angels? Follow-up question: how can you be sure that you, personally, are on the side of the angels? Especially if you have never been allowed to hear the opposing point of view? Seriously, the growing support for censorship in the previously libertarianish Tech community has been the worst development of the last decade.
    - hunter2_ 6y ago
      Actually, I don't care for censorship. I'd rather let the idea be presented and let the intolerance for it drown it out by way of copious rebuttals, not removal. I won't know if I'm on the side of the angels, but I'll know I'm in good company and I'll have heard both sides at levels roughly proportionate to the size of the population interested in defending each side. In hindsight, I see how citing codes of conduct implies support for censorship, when my actual intent was simply to demonstrate another example of "intolerance" having noble goals.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - wussboy 6y ago
      These are fine questions, and their answers should sit uncomfortably in all humans. But unless we are content to let human knowledge dissolve into meaninglessness, we must look to something external to our own reasoning to help decide what to believe. For me, I have drawn that line at Scientific Consensus because it has proved the most robust tool humanity has ever found for determining what is actually true. Is it perfect? No. Is it better than everything else? Undoubtedly yes. I think it must be the starting point and possibly the ending point for all discussions of this nature. To use another tool you must first convince me it is better than Scientific Consensus.
      - hunter2_ 6y ago
        And this is the root of the divide, as far as I can tell. It's quite literally nerds and bullies all over again. Those who see the light and those who think you're a tool for doing so. Netiquette 101: Don't feed the trolls. (But here we are.)
        wussboy 6y ago
        Everyone thinks the other side is a tool. This is so pervasive it must be completely discarded as a measure of truth.
      - hutzlibu 6y ago
        "ut unless we are content to let human knowledge dissolve into meaninglessness, we must look to something external to our own reasoning to help decide what to believe. For me, I have drawn that line at Scientific Consensus because it has proved the most robust tool humanity has ever found for determining what is actually true" Well, I agree with the scientific consensus on a general base. But since science was not always right, I don't see a valid argument from there to censorship. You want to censor ideas not covered by scientific consensus? "and their answers should sit uncomfortably in all humans" Because, also no. I do not feel uncomfortable. I am strongly against censorship. Open, unrestricted exchange of ideas. If the scientific way is the best (which I believe), then the crackpot approaches will fail naturally. But if you censor those other approaches, you might actually strenghten them.
  - ericd 6y ago
    So you're saying that authoritarian measures are the way? Codes of conduct change minds if people are receptive, or they play along so that they don't get abused, and it looks like it's changed their mind. From where I'm sitting, perceived authoritarian tendencies on the democratic side is a large part of what really motivates Trump voters. That's certainly a lot of the narrative, if you ever visit that side of the media landscape.
    - noncoml 6y ago
      Nobody talked about censorship and authoritarian measures. It’s about: 1. Don’t even entertain their distorted reality 2. Put a stop on the spread of misinformation Stopping your anti-vaccine post from going viral on social media is in no way any different than a scientific magazine refusing to publish the same.
      - usaphp 6y ago
        > nobody talked about censorship > put a stop on spread of misinformation That’s what censorship is. A small group of people will decide what is considered misinformation and will censor everything that goes against that
        hunter2_ 6y ago
        So is fighting misinformation a lost cause, or can we come up with some plan that doesn't involve a small group of people censoring it? Would some kind of distributed rating system like upvotes/downvotes be acceptable, or is the better course of action to be okay with letting all information -- even if specifically designed to trick people, not only the most gullible, but even the most discerning skeptics -- circulate? I believe the government should not have a say in whether or not all information circulates, but ordinary people who build information sharing systems (and I don't just mean electronic ones) have an opportunity to figure this out. Should they not?
        noncoml 6y ago
        > That’s what censorship is. A small group of people will decide what is considered misinformation and will censor everything that goes against that This is not censorship. Censorship is stopping you from expressing your thoughts. Not publishing your thoughts is not. You can say whatever you want but no newspaper is in any obligation to publish it. Similar with social media, you can write whatever you want on your personal "page", but they are under no obligation to make sure it reaches other people's feed.
- noncoml 6y ago
  > you're not going to force your beliefs on them Beliefs? Science, and scientific evidence became “beliefs” That’s the problem right here.
  - ericd 6y ago
    Yes, it's a belief/acceptance/trust/whatever you want to call it. I believe demonstrated science is fact, but that's still a belief about the world. My parents are in scientific fields, I received a science and engineering based education, and generally have faith in the scientific method as performed by most scientists. But we DO have to convince people, we have to convince people by showing them how it works, and letting them decide that that makes sense, you can't just mandate belief as a science authoritarian. And science is still performed by humans, and we're fallible, and our incentives aren't always good, and every time there's a public failure of the process, and every time a scientist goes on record to shill for a company's chosen viewpoint, it dings the general public's faith in science and scientific experts in general.
    - noncoml 6y ago
      You arguments here are the problem. I know that you mean well and in a perfect world what you say would make sense, but when you say “science is still performed by humans” is an opportunity for the school dropout to say, “see even between them they have doubts, the earth is flat”.
      - sokoloff 6y ago
        What’s the better alternative? If you don’t explain how we know the earth is roughly spherical, that’s the opportunity for that person to conclude “see, they can’t even refute it; look for yourself, sheeple...”
  - hvdfhbj 6y ago
    Don't you dare use the word "science" to justify censorship. The scientific method is completely incompatible with censorship of dissenting ideas. The scientific method is based on the idea that all knowledge is provisional and subject to change when new evidence comes in. Saying "this is the currently accepted truth, censor everything else" is the opposite of science.
- heavyset_go 6y ago
  Well, tolerance has got us non-solutions like vaccine waivers for schools, and legislation that makes it easier for people who choose not to vaccinate their kids to spread easily preventable diseases. It also got us sick and dead kids.

ericd 6y ago

Really don't think being less tolerant is the answer here. It certainly doesn't help change minds, you're not going to force your beliefs on them.

hunter2_ 6y ago
Done right, being less tolerant of speech/behavior that can be detrimental to the common good does change minds for the better. Any "code of conduct" is precisely this: directly calling out detrimental behavior as vile with no tolerance for it. The fact that nearly half of voters in the United States support Trump does not change this.
- hvdfhbj 6y ago
  How can you be sure that the censors will always be on the side of the angels? Follow-up question: how can you be sure that you, personally, are on the side of the angels? Especially if you have never been allowed to hear the opposing point of view? Seriously, the growing support for censorship in the previously libertarianish Tech community has been the worst development of the last decade.
  - hunter2_ 6y ago
    Actually, I don't care for censorship. I'd rather let the idea be presented and let the intolerance for it drown it out by way of copious rebuttals, not removal. I won't know if I'm on the side of the angels, but I'll know I'm in good company and I'll have heard both sides at levels roughly proportionate to the size of the population interested in defending each side. In hindsight, I see how citing codes of conduct implies support for censorship, when my actual intent was simply to demonstrate another example of "intolerance" having noble goals.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - wussboy 6y ago
    These are fine questions, and their answers should sit uncomfortably in all humans. But unless we are content to let human knowledge dissolve into meaninglessness, we must look to something external to our own reasoning to help decide what to believe. For me, I have drawn that line at Scientific Consensus because it has proved the most robust tool humanity has ever found for determining what is actually true. Is it perfect? No. Is it better than everything else? Undoubtedly yes. I think it must be the starting point and possibly the ending point for all discussions of this nature. To use another tool you must first convince me it is better than Scientific Consensus.
    - hunter2_ 6y ago
      And this is the root of the divide, as far as I can tell. It's quite literally nerds and bullies all over again. Those who see the light and those who think you're a tool for doing so. Netiquette 101: Don't feed the trolls. (But here we are.)
      - wussboy 6y ago
        Everyone thinks the other side is a tool. This is so pervasive it must be completely discarded as a measure of truth.
    - hutzlibu 6y ago
      "ut unless we are content to let human knowledge dissolve into meaninglessness, we must look to something external to our own reasoning to help decide what to believe. For me, I have drawn that line at Scientific Consensus because it has proved the most robust tool humanity has ever found for determining what is actually true" Well, I agree with the scientific consensus on a general base. But since science was not always right, I don't see a valid argument from there to censorship. You want to censor ideas not covered by scientific consensus? "and their answers should sit uncomfortably in all humans" Because, also no. I do not feel uncomfortable. I am strongly against censorship. Open, unrestricted exchange of ideas. If the scientific way is the best (which I believe), then the crackpot approaches will fail naturally. But if you censor those other approaches, you might actually strenghten them.
- ericd 6y ago
  So you're saying that authoritarian measures are the way? Codes of conduct change minds if people are receptive, or they play along so that they don't get abused, and it looks like it's changed their mind. From where I'm sitting, perceived authoritarian tendencies on the democratic side is a large part of what really motivates Trump voters. That's certainly a lot of the narrative, if you ever visit that side of the media landscape.
  - noncoml 6y ago
    Nobody talked about censorship and authoritarian measures. It’s about: 1. Don’t even entertain their distorted reality 2. Put a stop on the spread of misinformation Stopping your anti-vaccine post from going viral on social media is in no way any different than a scientific magazine refusing to publish the same.
    - usaphp 6y ago
      > nobody talked about censorship > put a stop on spread of misinformation That’s what censorship is. A small group of people will decide what is considered misinformation and will censor everything that goes against that
      - hunter2_ 6y ago
        So is fighting misinformation a lost cause, or can we come up with some plan that doesn't involve a small group of people censoring it? Would some kind of distributed rating system like upvotes/downvotes be acceptable, or is the better course of action to be okay with letting all information -- even if specifically designed to trick people, not only the most gullible, but even the most discerning skeptics -- circulate? I believe the government should not have a say in whether or not all information circulates, but ordinary people who build information sharing systems (and I don't just mean electronic ones) have an opportunity to figure this out. Should they not?
      - noncoml 6y ago
        > That’s what censorship is. A small group of people will decide what is considered misinformation and will censor everything that goes against that This is not censorship. Censorship is stopping you from expressing your thoughts. Not publishing your thoughts is not. You can say whatever you want but no newspaper is in any obligation to publish it. Similar with social media, you can write whatever you want on your personal "page", but they are under no obligation to make sure it reaches other people's feed.
noncoml 6y ago
> you're not going to force your beliefs on them Beliefs? Science, and scientific evidence became “beliefs” That’s the problem right here.
- ericd 6y ago
  Yes, it's a belief/acceptance/trust/whatever you want to call it. I believe demonstrated science is fact, but that's still a belief about the world. My parents are in scientific fields, I received a science and engineering based education, and generally have faith in the scientific method as performed by most scientists. But we DO have to convince people, we have to convince people by showing them how it works, and letting them decide that that makes sense, you can't just mandate belief as a science authoritarian. And science is still performed by humans, and we're fallible, and our incentives aren't always good, and every time there's a public failure of the process, and every time a scientist goes on record to shill for a company's chosen viewpoint, it dings the general public's faith in science and scientific experts in general.
  - noncoml 6y ago
    You arguments here are the problem. I know that you mean well and in a perfect world what you say would make sense, but when you say “science is still performed by humans” is an opportunity for the school dropout to say, “see even between them they have doubts, the earth is flat”.
    - sokoloff 6y ago
      What’s the better alternative? If you don’t explain how we know the earth is roughly spherical, that’s the opportunity for that person to conclude “see, they can’t even refute it; look for yourself, sheeple...”
- hvdfhbj 6y ago
  Don't you dare use the word "science" to justify censorship. The scientific method is completely incompatible with censorship of dissenting ideas. The scientific method is based on the idea that all knowledge is provisional and subject to change when new evidence comes in. Saying "this is the currently accepted truth, censor everything else" is the opposite of science.
heavyset_go 6y ago
Well, tolerance has got us non-solutions like vaccine waivers for schools, and legislation that makes it easier for people who choose not to vaccinate their kids to spread easily preventable diseases. It also got us sick and dead kids.