5 ms·

It's incomprehensible how anyone would not shudder from anger seeing such injustice or how anyone would be clueless enough to argue that centralized, uncontroll

It's incomprehensible how anyone would not shudder from anger seeing such injustice or how anyone would be clueless enough to argue that centralized, uncontrolled power of any kind has the right to exist in our time. We should all be working hard on dismantling these barbarian relics of the past as soon as possible, even if only to let their innocent victims to stand in the shambles and breathe the sweet air of freedom once again in their lives.

bitcharmer 6y ago
The same applies to blasphemy laws IMHO.
- ars 6y ago
  That need a bit of nuance IMO. Blasphemy in general doesn't need protecting. But blasphemy targeting a specific person or institution is effectively hate speech, and there are good reasons to ban it.
  - iguy 6y ago
    Doesn't blasphemy by definition target a non-existent person?
    - jacobr1 6y ago
      You can craft the implication with clever rhetoric. You can imply that holding the lambasted beliefs would only be done by someone mentally-ill or mislead, maybe even the ideas are so ridiculous that it is likely those purporting to hold such beliefs are disingenuous and have more sinister motives.
      - myWindoonn 6y ago
        Yes, but that decomposes into blasphemy (against a deity) and defamation (against a person). For example, Jehovah probably doesn't exist. That's blasphemy, but it says nothing about those who believe in Jehovah. It's optional to include defamatory swipes at believers. For comparison, recall that Santa Claus also probably doesn't exist, and examine your emotions to see how you feel about the contrast between Santa Claus and Jehovah.
      - burrows 6y ago
        “Only a hateful racist Nazi-adjacent person could think that the gap between American black and white socioeconomic status is caused by degenerate, pathologically retarded black culture rather than ‘oppression’.“ Am I doing it right?
  - bitcharmer 6y ago
    Blasphemy - the action or offence of speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things; profane talk. It applies strictly to religion, not people.
fsflover 6y ago
>to argue that centralized, uncontrolled power of any kind has no right to exist in our time See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25828081 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25828081
validuser 6y ago
s/no right/the right?
crispyambulance 6y ago
It's ugly but it's not "incomprehensible". They got a monarchy. That means something. The monarchy serves as a kind of sacred cultural identity and attacking the monarchy is like attacking the society itself. Places like England have more evolved monarchies, where saying something against royals won't land someone in jail, but the same sentiment is there. The only way to "dismantle it" is to wait and do it in steps over generations. Even Thailand is doing that now. The royals are largely symbolic and don't exercise direct political power. But there's still a strong cultural attachment.
- JRGC 6y ago
  the new king is not his father
- xenocratus 6y ago
  > Even Thailand is doing that now. The royals are largely symbolic and don't exercise direct political power. But there's still a strong cultural attachment. Don't know how biased the Economist is on this, but they've had a number of articles talking about the increasing role of the current king. An example is linked below. https://www.economist.com/briefing/2020/10/14/thailands-king-seeks-to-bring-back-absolute-monarchy https://www.economist.com/briefing/2020/10/14/thailands-king... https://web.archive.org/web/20210103234100if_/https://www.economist.com/briefing/2020/10/14/thailands-king-seeks-to-bring-back-absolute-monarchy https://web.archive.org/web/20210103234100if_/https://www.ec...
  - notahacker 6y ago
    Thailand has been technically a constitutional monarchy like the UK since 1932. But the constitutional role of a monarch is a lot bigger in a country which has had more coups than most countries have had elections in the time period since, and everyone involved has tried to claim their legitimacy comes from the monarch
- iguy 6y ago
  It sounds more like they have a military government, who claim to act in the name of a king. And hence claim that any criticism of them is criticism of him. Against which there are both strong laws (even if these were seldom applied so strongly before?) and a cultural taboo (which otherwise a general appointing himself leader would not command).
yrimaxi 6y ago
Many people are fine with it when the centralized power is in the form of a corporation.
- baron_harkonnen 6y ago
  They fact that such an obvious comment such as this is immediately downvote here is the strongest evidence of the truth of this statement I can imagine. We only question the authority of monarchy because we have moved on to a more powerful system of control. 500 years ago, when monarchs where publicly viewed as divinely ordained (a similar but less sophisticated ideology that create the idea that companies should be totalitarian) even questioning the right of a king to his thrown as seen as heretical.
  - Aunche 6y ago
    You're on a forum created by company whose goal is to create as many billion-dollar corporations as possible. It's unsurprising that its users do not appreciate such a reductionist take on corporations.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - baron_harkonnen 6y ago
      I hardly feel that claiming that corporations are able to exert the same type of non-democratic control over society as a monarchy through a complex system of ideological tools that make even pointing out the existence of such a power structure forbidden is reductionist. And the idea that HN should be free from any critical or skeptical opinions of the current state of the tech industry is at least against the hacker spirit, which, for all of PGs faults, is at least part of the founding of this forum.
      - Aunche 6y ago
        The article is about a woman sent to jail for 43 years. The worst thing a corporation can do is stop giving you money. You can then join a worker cooperative if you wish. Users are also free to downvote what they want. There's a good chance you'll be downvoted for defending corporations on Reddit, for example.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
burrows 6y ago
> incomprehensible ... shudder ... anger ... such injustice ... clueless ... right to exist in our time ... dismantling ... barbarian relics ... innocent victims ... the shambles and breathe the sweet air of freedom A robust, well reasoned argument aimed directly at the rational principle in the soul of each reader. Exactly the sort of comment I expect to see recommended by a community of educated, intelligent people.
- Cthulhu_ 6y ago
  Breathless Appeal to Emotion, or related to it anyway. Breathless comments are quite common on HN. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion
baron_harkonnen 6y ago
> uncontrolled power of any kind has the right to exist in our time. I honestly can't tell if this is satire or not anymore. Where do we not see this type of uncontrolled power? Residents of the US live in a vast oligarchy where the elite define freedom as "the ability to change which feudal lord you work for", in a system where all lords serve the same master. Our "democratic" government is largely a spectacle which has little impact on the day to day lives of citizens despite how terrified they are of its collapse. In the united states anyone who has too deeply radical thoughts will simply be unemployable, without a means of survival, healthcare or housing. The idea that employees of a company should have a say in the practices of the company is considered highest heresy. Even the times where some sort of worker union can emerge it's only to provided limited benefit to the workers. The US has evolved a more sophisticated form of "uncontrolled power", one so powerful that even stating its existence is fought with controversy. At least in traditional monarchy you can find a way to life your live largely away these power structures, "heaven is high and the emperor is far away". Whereas the power structures in our own society literally mesh themselves in our flesh and minds. The best part is you cannot even question them (there's a 50/50 chance this very comment will be downvoted into oblivion).

bitcharmer 6y ago

The same applies to blasphemy laws IMHO.

ars 6y ago
That need a bit of nuance IMO. Blasphemy in general doesn't need protecting. But blasphemy targeting a specific person or institution is effectively hate speech, and there are good reasons to ban it.
- iguy 6y ago
  Doesn't blasphemy by definition target a non-existent person?
  - jacobr1 6y ago
    You can craft the implication with clever rhetoric. You can imply that holding the lambasted beliefs would only be done by someone mentally-ill or mislead, maybe even the ideas are so ridiculous that it is likely those purporting to hold such beliefs are disingenuous and have more sinister motives.
    - myWindoonn 6y ago
      Yes, but that decomposes into blasphemy (against a deity) and defamation (against a person). For example, Jehovah probably doesn't exist. That's blasphemy, but it says nothing about those who believe in Jehovah. It's optional to include defamatory swipes at believers. For comparison, recall that Santa Claus also probably doesn't exist, and examine your emotions to see how you feel about the contrast between Santa Claus and Jehovah.
    - burrows 6y ago
      “Only a hateful racist Nazi-adjacent person could think that the gap between American black and white socioeconomic status is caused by degenerate, pathologically retarded black culture rather than ‘oppression’.“ Am I doing it right?
- bitcharmer 6y ago
  Blasphemy - the action or offence of speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things; profane talk. It applies strictly to religion, not people.

fsflover 6y ago

>to argue that centralized, uncontrolled power of any kind has no right to exist in our time See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25828081 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25828081

validuser 6y ago

s/no right/the right?

crispyambulance 6y ago

It's ugly but it's not "incomprehensible". They got a monarchy. That means something. The monarchy serves as a kind of sacred cultural identity and attacking the monarchy is like attacking the society itself. Places like England have more evolved monarchies, where saying something against royals won't land someone in jail, but the same sentiment is there. The only way to "dismantle it" is to wait and do it in steps over generations. Even Thailand is doing that now. The royals are largely symbolic and don't exercise direct political power. But there's still a strong cultural attachment.

JRGC 6y ago
the new king is not his father
xenocratus 6y ago
> Even Thailand is doing that now. The royals are largely symbolic and don't exercise direct political power. But there's still a strong cultural attachment. Don't know how biased the Economist is on this, but they've had a number of articles talking about the increasing role of the current king. An example is linked below. https://www.economist.com/briefing/2020/10/14/thailands-king-seeks-to-bring-back-absolute-monarchy https://www.economist.com/briefing/2020/10/14/thailands-king... https://web.archive.org/web/20210103234100if_/https://www.economist.com/briefing/2020/10/14/thailands-king-seeks-to-bring-back-absolute-monarchy https://web.archive.org/web/20210103234100if_/https://www.ec...
- notahacker 6y ago
  Thailand has been technically a constitutional monarchy like the UK since 1932. But the constitutional role of a monarch is a lot bigger in a country which has had more coups than most countries have had elections in the time period since, and everyone involved has tried to claim their legitimacy comes from the monarch
iguy 6y ago
It sounds more like they have a military government, who claim to act in the name of a king. And hence claim that any criticism of them is criticism of him. Against which there are both strong laws (even if these were seldom applied so strongly before?) and a cultural taboo (which otherwise a general appointing himself leader would not command).

yrimaxi 6y ago

Many people are fine with it when the centralized power is in the form of a corporation.

baron_harkonnen 6y ago
They fact that such an obvious comment such as this is immediately downvote here is the strongest evidence of the truth of this statement I can imagine. We only question the authority of monarchy because we have moved on to a more powerful system of control. 500 years ago, when monarchs where publicly viewed as divinely ordained (a similar but less sophisticated ideology that create the idea that companies should be totalitarian) even questioning the right of a king to his thrown as seen as heretical.
- Aunche 6y ago
  You're on a forum created by company whose goal is to create as many billion-dollar corporations as possible. It's unsurprising that its users do not appreciate such a reductionist take on corporations.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - baron_harkonnen 6y ago
    I hardly feel that claiming that corporations are able to exert the same type of non-democratic control over society as a monarchy through a complex system of ideological tools that make even pointing out the existence of such a power structure forbidden is reductionist. And the idea that HN should be free from any critical or skeptical opinions of the current state of the tech industry is at least against the hacker spirit, which, for all of PGs faults, is at least part of the founding of this forum.
    - Aunche 6y ago
      The article is about a woman sent to jail for 43 years. The worst thing a corporation can do is stop giving you money. You can then join a worker cooperative if you wish. Users are also free to downvote what they want. There's a good chance you'll be downvoted for defending corporations on Reddit, for example.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

burrows 6y ago

> incomprehensible ... shudder ... anger ... such injustice ... clueless ... right to exist in our time ... dismantling ... barbarian relics ... innocent victims ... the shambles and breathe the sweet air of freedom A robust, well reasoned argument aimed directly at the rational principle in the soul of each reader. Exactly the sort of comment I expect to see recommended by a community of educated, intelligent people.

Cthulhu_ 6y ago
Breathless Appeal to Emotion, or related to it anyway. Breathless comments are quite common on HN. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion

baron_harkonnen 6y ago

> uncontrolled power of any kind has the right to exist in our time. I honestly can't tell if this is satire or not anymore. Where do we not see this type of uncontrolled power? Residents of the US live in a vast oligarchy where the elite define freedom as "the ability to change which feudal lord you work for", in a system where all lords serve the same master. Our "democratic" government is largely a spectacle which has little impact on the day to day lives of citizens despite how terrified they are of its collapse. In the united states anyone who has too deeply radical thoughts will simply be unemployable, without a means of survival, healthcare or housing. The idea that employees of a company should have a say in the practices of the company is considered highest heresy. Even the times where some sort of worker union can emerge it's only to provided limited benefit to the workers. The US has evolved a more sophisticated form of "uncontrolled power", one so powerful that even stating its existence is fought with controversy. At least in traditional monarchy you can find a way to life your live largely away these power structures, "heaven is high and the emperor is far away". Whereas the power structures in our own society literally mesh themselves in our flesh and minds. The best part is you cannot even question them (there's a 50/50 chance this very comment will be downvoted into oblivion).