3 ms·

So your solution to diversity of beliefs is don't ask, don't tell?

antonvs 6y ago
It's not "my solution." It's an observation about what actually happens in the world, in practice. One important aspect of what I described is that it requires an awareness of when one's beliefs are out of line with widely accepted positions. That awareness helps avoid pointless and unnecessary conflict, and may also cause one to reconsider the specifics of one's beliefs. Lacking that awareness is likely to lead to trouble. When someone finds themselves defending child predators, it suggest that they are severely lacking in that kind of self-awareness. Social shaming in that situation is not unreasonable, and may help the person improve their understanding of how their beliefs fit into the world.
- happysadpanda2 6y ago
  Was Minsky ever proven to have had sex with a minor? Or what child predator do you believe rms to be defending?
  - creamytaco 6y ago
    Minsky's own wife testified that she was with him during the visit to Epstein's island and nothing of the sort happened. Of course, facts mean nothing to the mob. You see it here in this very thread (comments marking RMS as a "serial harasser" when that's pure fiction at best and malicious slander at worst). The ideology and mental models behind cancel culture are so poisonous and hostile to open exchange of ideas that they need to be rooted out and vehemently exposed wherever encountered.
    - dang 6y ago
      Your account has been using HN primarily for political and ideological battle. We ban accounts that do that—regardless of what ideology they're battling for or against—because it's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
- Dracophoenix 6y ago
  All of what you've said could apply to every controversial position to ever exist. These include racial equality, women's rights, homosexuality, democracy, wearing shoes inside the house, etc. It is both patronizing and factually incorrect to claim that speaking one's mind is to be equated with lack of awareness and pointless conflict. Who are you or anyone else to determine what's pointless? Conflict can arise from any reason at all even the most irrational. It isn't anyone's obligation to be the broker or bearer of a false dogma for society's sake. There's no reason to reconsider a view until proof to the contrary is presented by the claimant. Any social stigma based on such a premise is only a reflection of its insular beliefs - nay, delusions - held onto without examination or scrutiny. Shaming is the only the weapon left to people whose view of themselves and the world around them depends on the sanctity of an ideological house of cards. Reasonable people don't need hokum like shaming to defeat an argument. It's only necessary for the unreasonable. A society dependent on shaming is itself lacking in awareness. It can't hope to understand world beyond itself. Equating beliefs that please merely general society and with beliefs that fit into the world is a false premise. The world is a much bigger and unconventional place than most will accept.

It's not "my solution." It's an observation about what actually happens in the world, in practice. One important aspect of what I described is that it requires an awareness of when one's beliefs are out of line with widely accepted positions. That awareness helps avoid pointless and unnecessary conflict, and may also cause one to reconsider the specifics of one's beliefs. Lacking that awareness is likely to lead to trouble. When someone finds themselves defending child predators, it suggest that they are severely lacking in that kind of self-awareness. Social shaming in that situation is not unreasonable, and may help the person improve their understanding of how their beliefs fit into the world.

happysadpanda2 6y ago
Was Minsky ever proven to have had sex with a minor? Or what child predator do you believe rms to be defending?
- creamytaco 6y ago
  Minsky's own wife testified that she was with him during the visit to Epstein's island and nothing of the sort happened. Of course, facts mean nothing to the mob. You see it here in this very thread (comments marking RMS as a "serial harasser" when that's pure fiction at best and malicious slander at worst). The ideology and mental models behind cancel culture are so poisonous and hostile to open exchange of ideas that they need to be rooted out and vehemently exposed wherever encountered.
  - dang 6y ago
    Your account has been using HN primarily for political and ideological battle. We ban accounts that do that—regardless of what ideology they're battling for or against—because it's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
Dracophoenix 6y ago
All of what you've said could apply to every controversial position to ever exist. These include racial equality, women's rights, homosexuality, democracy, wearing shoes inside the house, etc. It is both patronizing and factually incorrect to claim that speaking one's mind is to be equated with lack of awareness and pointless conflict. Who are you or anyone else to determine what's pointless? Conflict can arise from any reason at all even the most irrational. It isn't anyone's obligation to be the broker or bearer of a false dogma for society's sake. There's no reason to reconsider a view until proof to the contrary is presented by the claimant. Any social stigma based on such a premise is only a reflection of its insular beliefs - nay, delusions - held onto without examination or scrutiny. Shaming is the only the weapon left to people whose view of themselves and the world around them depends on the sanctity of an ideological house of cards. Reasonable people don't need hokum like shaming to defeat an argument. It's only necessary for the unreasonable. A society dependent on shaming is itself lacking in awareness. It can't hope to understand world beyond itself. Equating beliefs that please merely general society and with beliefs that fit into the world is a false premise. The world is a much bigger and unconventional place than most will accept.