4 ms·

What are some examples of "true things that happen to be taboo to say" that you can't say?

• axguscbklp 6y ago
  I think if I answered your question the HN moderation would see it as leading the discussion into ideological flamewar and crack down. This is based on my past experience.
• symlinkk 6y ago
  Just posting this to answer your question, not taking a position on these: “Women getting paid less in the workplace is because they purposely pick lower paying jobs, not because they’re discriminated against” “The BLM protests from last year were more riots than protests and were not justified considering the events that sparked them” “Transsexual people are experiencing a mental disorder and this shouldn’t be encouraged or accepted”
  • the_only_law 6y ago
    > Just posting this to answer your question, not taking a position on these: How are you not taking a position on these if the question is in regards to "true things that happen to be taboo to say"?
    • psychiatrist24 6y ago
      Because believing things and taking a position are different things, maybe? It's actually one of the hallmarks of a cult (like wokeness) that to become a member, you must openly declare belief in obviously false things. Religions are another good example.
  • Chris2048 6y ago
    The first is a factual statement (is versus ought); The second semi-factual ("not justified" is a maybe subjective distinction); The last is purely subjective, both in the "shouldn't" and the somewhat vague definition of "mental disorder". That said, the furore around TS seems to be as much about enforcing terminology that appears to muddy-the-waters wrt biology i.e. what "woman" means, or should mean.
• oilbagz 6y ago
  Just a few truths that will get you kicked off HN: * Americans funded and supported the genocide of Yemen, which started under Obama and continued under Trump, to completion. * ISIS is an invention of the CIA designed to justify continued war efforts in the ME. These things are arguably defensible as truths, with real evidence - however, any attempt to discuss them in an American-led forum results in a hard ban hammer being dropped, regardless. This is the slippery slope. Sure, we need to cut out the racism, sexism and bigotry online. But, we also need to cut out the ignorance, nationalism and cowardice for confronting ones own state crimes... and absolutely must never condone censorship of discussion of war crimes, crimes against humanity, etc. That is where this self-censorship and denial of public voice is headed ..
• teddyh 6y ago
  Like I have said before¹, you are, in effect, asking for people to step in the bear trap in order to prove to you that it’s dangerous. 1) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21659417 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21659417
  • enriquto 6y ago
    > you are, in effect, asking for people to step in the bear trap in order to prove to you that it’s dangerous As a counterpoint, by invoking the "bear trap" argument you are dismissing the only possible way to prove your point. Both sides sound like logical fallacies to me.
    • teddyh 6y ago
      Something can be true even if there is no way to prove it. But even if the proof can not be offered volontarily, you might see other people accidentally “step in the bear trap”, so to speak, and thereby infer its existence.
• commandlinefan 6y ago
  There's the rub: he can't say them. But you and I both know what they are.