5 ms·

Isn't this normal for US politics? This clip could as well have applied to the 60s and 70s. For example: > The late 1960s, early 1970s saw a dramatic shift in

by da02 5y ago

Isn't this normal for US politics? This clip could as well have applied to the 60s and 70s. For example: > The late 1960s, early 1970s saw a dramatic shift in the American political matrix, a redefinition of competing political ideologies or belief systems. War, urban riots, campus protests and student alienation, assassinations, inter-generational mistrust, monetary inflation, the growth of the welfare-warfare state, and the “Sexual Revolution,” were the background sociopolitical issues driving this sea change. From: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2009/04/charles-burris/from-radiclib-to-libertarian/ https://www.lewrockwell.com/2009/04/charles-burris/from-radi... So all the violence, riots, and corrupt politics (on both sides) seems to be we are going through another cycle of warring political parties and movements?

Pfhreak 5y ago
The civil rights was full of people begging for unity, and asking Black leaders to just calm down and wait. All the calls for calm today are exactly the calls for calm they've always been in America -- calls from folks who are not suffering to those who are to just deal with it. In my opinion, calling for unity and calling for calm are dismissive of very real concerns people have.
- pmoriarty 5y ago
  "All the calls for calm today are exactly the calls for calm they've always been in America -- calls from folks who are not suffering to those who are to just deal with it." Martin Luther King Jr. and the rest of the non-violent Civil Rights movement during the 1960's were calling for calm as they were being beaten, firehosed, attacked with dogs, imprisoned, assasinated and lynched. So I guess you must think they didn't suffer?
  - Pfhreak 5y ago
    King did not call for calm, in fact often the opposite. Here's a quote from him: “Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. . . . I must confess that I am not afraid of the word ‘tension.’” King was non-violent, but he did not avoid conflict. King regularly called on people to break laws because they were unjust. He specifically called for increasing tensions. And he was called an 'agitator'. He specifically chose not to condemn riots: “But it is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard.” And he famously objected to calls for calm and order: “I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice” Edit: Removed my judgement of the parent poster's understanding of King from the comment.
    - dang 5y ago
      Please make your substantive points without putting down your fellow user. Your comment would be just fine without the first sentence. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Edit: the sentence I was reacting to was "You do not have a good understanding of King's work." Since it has been edited out now, I'm going to mark this subthread off topic and collapse it.
      - AaronFriel 5y ago
        The claim seems factually accurate and supported. We wouldn't consider an expert saying "you don't understand transformer ML models" with quotes supporting that claim, as being putting down the user, no? I often read technical conversations on HN in which one user tells another they don't have an accurate understanding of some topic. Just because it's a historical or cultural matter doesn't mean it's ad hominem to state plainly and dispassionately that someone lacks understanding.
        dang 5y ago
        It's just the same when the topic is ML models. HN readers shouldn't be making pejorative comments about each other in those conversations either, and when we see it we moderate it the same way. There's no need to comment pejoratively on the other person. The post is stronger without it, and the expected value of such swipes, in terms of the impact they have on subsequent discussion, is sharply negative.
        jancsika 5y ago
        > HN readers shouldn't be making pejorative comments about each other in those conversations either, and when we see it we moderate it the same way. Moderation appears highly selective. E.g., "This argument is clownish and we should be embarrassed it's on the front page."[1] That is the top comment for that post, but I don't notice your reminder there about pejorative comments. If I had to rankly speculate, I'd say moderation happens consistently on topics where the average HN user tends to have a low level of knowledge (unionization, civil rights history), and less consistently for topics where there is a greater probability of a critical mass of participants with domain expertise (digital security). I also rankly speculate that you don't state this outright to prevent the tinder fire that would result from making users aware of their own lack of knowledge on the topics more likely to be moderated.
ladyattis 5y ago
The reality is that the US has always been tribal. There's been religious tribalism, racial tribalism (non-Irish v Irish, Black v White, etc), and even regional tribalism despite the rising national consciousness during and after the American Civil War. I'm not saying it's good but I'm just wanting to state it's always been there. Today, the Internet makes it just easier to see. Instead of having to hear it at the local hardware store or diner you can just go on facebook or some other social media site and see it in near real time. Also, the pseudo-anonymity of the Internet just gives it a sharper edge than normal (the person on the other side doesn't feel like they're reacting to another person but just another blip on the screen). Heck, as a mutualist anarchist I've gotten into spats with ancoms and other anarchists over silly issues (think of the whole ancap spats over NAP and proportionality or 'thickism' if you're a right libertarian). So to me this isn't new. Maybe to talking heads who aren't as 'online' as me and others this seems odd but I'm just surprised how clueless traditional media can be on these issues. It's not the 90s anymore folks, just about everyone is online and probably more than they should be (myself included).
- TheAdamAndChe 5y ago
  The difference now is the risk of tribalism becoming sectarianism, which is where anyone who doesn't agree with you is an enemy not to be trusted. The transition between those two is the determining factor on if civil war and widespread violence becomes likely. Sectarianism isn't common and hasn't happened en masse since the 1860s.

by da02 5y ago

Pfhreak 5y ago

The civil rights was full of people begging for unity, and asking Black leaders to just calm down and wait. All the calls for calm today are exactly the calls for calm they've always been in America -- calls from folks who are not suffering to those who are to just deal with it. In my opinion, calling for unity and calling for calm are dismissive of very real concerns people have.

pmoriarty 5y ago
"All the calls for calm today are exactly the calls for calm they've always been in America -- calls from folks who are not suffering to those who are to just deal with it." Martin Luther King Jr. and the rest of the non-violent Civil Rights movement during the 1960's were calling for calm as they were being beaten, firehosed, attacked with dogs, imprisoned, assasinated and lynched. So I guess you must think they didn't suffer?
- Pfhreak 5y ago
  King did not call for calm, in fact often the opposite. Here's a quote from him: “Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. . . . I must confess that I am not afraid of the word ‘tension.’” King was non-violent, but he did not avoid conflict. King regularly called on people to break laws because they were unjust. He specifically called for increasing tensions. And he was called an 'agitator'. He specifically chose not to condemn riots: “But it is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard.” And he famously objected to calls for calm and order: “I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice” Edit: Removed my judgement of the parent poster's understanding of King from the comment.
  - dang 5y ago
    Please make your substantive points without putting down your fellow user. Your comment would be just fine without the first sentence. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Edit: the sentence I was reacting to was "You do not have a good understanding of King's work." Since it has been edited out now, I'm going to mark this subthread off topic and collapse it.
    - AaronFriel 5y ago
      The claim seems factually accurate and supported. We wouldn't consider an expert saying "you don't understand transformer ML models" with quotes supporting that claim, as being putting down the user, no? I often read technical conversations on HN in which one user tells another they don't have an accurate understanding of some topic. Just because it's a historical or cultural matter doesn't mean it's ad hominem to state plainly and dispassionately that someone lacks understanding.
      - dang 5y ago
        It's just the same when the topic is ML models. HN readers shouldn't be making pejorative comments about each other in those conversations either, and when we see it we moderate it the same way. There's no need to comment pejoratively on the other person. The post is stronger without it, and the expected value of such swipes, in terms of the impact they have on subsequent discussion, is sharply negative.
        jancsika 5y ago
        > HN readers shouldn't be making pejorative comments about each other in those conversations either, and when we see it we moderate it the same way. Moderation appears highly selective. E.g., "This argument is clownish and we should be embarrassed it's on the front page."[1] That is the top comment for that post, but I don't notice your reminder there about pejorative comments. If I had to rankly speculate, I'd say moderation happens consistently on topics where the average HN user tends to have a low level of knowledge (unionization, civil rights history), and less consistently for topics where there is a greater probability of a critical mass of participants with domain expertise (digital security). I also rankly speculate that you don't state this outright to prevent the tinder fire that would result from making users aware of their own lack of knowledge on the topics more likely to be moderated.

ladyattis 5y ago

The reality is that the US has always been tribal. There's been religious tribalism, racial tribalism (non-Irish v Irish, Black v White, etc), and even regional tribalism despite the rising national consciousness during and after the American Civil War. I'm not saying it's good but I'm just wanting to state it's always been there. Today, the Internet makes it just easier to see. Instead of having to hear it at the local hardware store or diner you can just go on facebook or some other social media site and see it in near real time. Also, the pseudo-anonymity of the Internet just gives it a sharper edge than normal (the person on the other side doesn't feel like they're reacting to another person but just another blip on the screen). Heck, as a mutualist anarchist I've gotten into spats with ancoms and other anarchists over silly issues (think of the whole ancap spats over NAP and proportionality or 'thickism' if you're a right libertarian). So to me this isn't new. Maybe to talking heads who aren't as 'online' as me and others this seems odd but I'm just surprised how clueless traditional media can be on these issues. It's not the 90s anymore folks, just about everyone is online and probably more than they should be (myself included).

TheAdamAndChe 5y ago
The difference now is the risk of tribalism becoming sectarianism, which is where anyone who doesn't agree with you is an enemy not to be trusted. The transition between those two is the determining factor on if civil war and widespread violence becomes likely. Sectarianism isn't common and hasn't happened en masse since the 1860s.