6 ms·

This is where you and I disagree, and frankly why our country will continue to decline into more polarization and violence. I believe that you convince people

This is where you and I disagree, and frankly why our country will continue to decline into more polarization and violence. I believe that you convince people that they're wrong by making a reasoned argument. You seem to believe that you convince people that they're wrong by shutting them up, and censoring them. And as a free human being, I'll push whichever POV I so choose.

Klinky 5y ago
If you make a statement and provide a source that contradicts your statement, yes, you should be questioned on why you even provided that source in the first place, and if you actually read/comprehended it. That isn't "shutting them up", they invalidated their own claims with their own source.
- monoideism 5y ago
  Question? Absolutely. I encourage respectful questioning and refuting. Flagging and censoring? (cdot2 had been flagged into invisibility until he was unflagged) "paradox of tolerance"[1]? Nope 1. People should read _Open Society and Its Enemies_ before making that argument, because how they're applying it is not what Popper argued.
  - Klinky 5y ago
    I don't see why the HN community has to honor/uphold/tolerate/defend the opinion of a throwaway account posting inaccurate information its own cited source refutes. These alternative viewpoints need to have some level of credibility to them, we should not defend every rando's opinion blindly. I don't think an "open society" has ever actually existed or is even possible. All freedoms are measured in degrees based on the society. "Open society" likely leads more to vacuums filled by whoever has the best propaganda. George Soros, one of the bigger proponents of Popper, what with his Open Society Foundation inspired by Popper's works, has noted that deceptive modern advertising and propaganda casts doubts on the viability of Popper's vision of an open society[1]. However, Soros is often viewed as a liberal mouthpiece propagandist attempting to suppress conservative viewpoints, and is often the target of misinformation conspiracy theory campaigns himself. How much tolerance must we show? "The sky is purple"? "2+2=5"? Society must acknowledge these viewpoints? The mere act of acknowledging them as "viable alternative viewpoints" lends them credibility, which only festers more misinformation. It feels like as of late there has been increased pressure by certain groups to recategorize repugnant viewpoints as not being repugnant, but simply "a different perspective, worthy of tolerance and legitimacy". 1.https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/nov/11/frompoppertoroveandback https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/nov/11/frompo...
    - monoideism 5y ago
      > I don't see why the HN community has to honor/uphold/tolerate/defend Those are all very different words. And you do the same below when you mix up "tolerate" and "legitimize". Are you trying to confuse the debate? To be clear, I'm solely arguing for tolerate and not censor, not any of the other things. And wow, looking at that comment that was flagged, I can't comprehend how you would believe it's so repugnant that it's worthy of censoring and suppression. > Soros is often viewed as a liberal mouthpiece propagandist He's the target of unfortunate conspiracy theories, but I want to get this straight: you don't believe Soros is a liberal propagandist? Do you also not think the Koch brothers are libertarian propagandists? Of course, they all are! But yeah, I strongly disagree. I think censoring people who disagree, combined with the power and income inequality that was created by the plutocrats, will together kill our country. I don't want to give away my identity since I'm aware there are lots of people who would try to get me fired for disagreeing with them, but I've seen ethnic conflict up close and see every sign that the US is heading in that direction.
      - Klinky 5y ago
        >Those are all very different words. Not really. You are arguing that misinformation needs to have a place on this platform, and have a chance to be heard. Again an outright misinformed post, that couldn't even back itself up, needs to be here. You are defending and legitimizing it with this point of view. Much evil has been done in the world because people "tolerated" things and just let injustice slide. >you don't believe Soros is a liberal propagandist Yes, but practically everyone is a propagandist, and has bias. Though he has more sway because money speaks. >I've seen ethnic conflict up close and see every sign that the US is heading in that direction. Where have you been for the last 250 years? The US was founded on genocide and slavery. Ethnic conflict has been here forever.
syops 5y ago
From my perspective the U.S. has steadily shifted to the right the past 40 years. I doubt that a person advocating Reagan’s policies would be supported by today’s Republican Party. We have entered into territory where the paradox of tolerance is very much a reality. Tolerance is no longer a good option when confronting disingenuous comments. There is a significant segment of the American public that simply can no longer be reasoned with. As an example people who believe that Michelle Obama is a man can not be reasoned with.
- monoideism 5y ago
  This is what has actually happened to the country's political values (click animate to view the data over the past several decades): https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/interactives/political-polarization-1994-2017/ https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/interactives/political-... Here is a more detailed discussion of the data. Tragically, Pew Research describes the situation as dire even back in 2014, which was before polarization really started to accelerate. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/ https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2014/06/12/political-po... As you can see, both parties are moved toward the extremes, but in recent years the left has moved further to the left than the right toward the right. These moves to the extremes of the right and left are driven partly by social media, and partly by traditional media (since most traditional media these days originates in social media: original reportage is getting increasingly rare).
  - monocasa 5y ago
    That says nothing about the actual policies, only how polarized they are against each other relatively. Since 1992, both parties have moved to the right, just the Republicans have moved moreso. That's how we ended up with Newt Gingrich and the Heritage Foundation's 1994 HEART Act becoming Obamacare and radioactive to the Republicans two decades later. Go check out the concept of the overton window and see how a window can move to the right while both sides become more distinct within that window.
    - monoideism 5y ago

Klinky 5y ago

If you make a statement and provide a source that contradicts your statement, yes, you should be questioned on why you even provided that source in the first place, and if you actually read/comprehended it. That isn't "shutting them up", they invalidated their own claims with their own source.

monoideism 5y ago
Question? Absolutely. I encourage respectful questioning and refuting. Flagging and censoring? (cdot2 had been flagged into invisibility until he was unflagged) "paradox of tolerance"[1]? Nope 1. People should read _Open Society and Its Enemies_ before making that argument, because how they're applying it is not what Popper argued.
- Klinky 5y ago
  I don't see why the HN community has to honor/uphold/tolerate/defend the opinion of a throwaway account posting inaccurate information its own cited source refutes. These alternative viewpoints need to have some level of credibility to them, we should not defend every rando's opinion blindly. I don't think an "open society" has ever actually existed or is even possible. All freedoms are measured in degrees based on the society. "Open society" likely leads more to vacuums filled by whoever has the best propaganda. George Soros, one of the bigger proponents of Popper, what with his Open Society Foundation inspired by Popper's works, has noted that deceptive modern advertising and propaganda casts doubts on the viability of Popper's vision of an open society[1]. However, Soros is often viewed as a liberal mouthpiece propagandist attempting to suppress conservative viewpoints, and is often the target of misinformation conspiracy theory campaigns himself. How much tolerance must we show? "The sky is purple"? "2+2=5"? Society must acknowledge these viewpoints? The mere act of acknowledging them as "viable alternative viewpoints" lends them credibility, which only festers more misinformation. It feels like as of late there has been increased pressure by certain groups to recategorize repugnant viewpoints as not being repugnant, but simply "a different perspective, worthy of tolerance and legitimacy". 1.https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/nov/11/frompoppertoroveandback https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/nov/11/frompo...
  - monoideism 5y ago
    > I don't see why the HN community has to honor/uphold/tolerate/defend Those are all very different words. And you do the same below when you mix up "tolerate" and "legitimize". Are you trying to confuse the debate? To be clear, I'm solely arguing for tolerate and not censor, not any of the other things. And wow, looking at that comment that was flagged, I can't comprehend how you would believe it's so repugnant that it's worthy of censoring and suppression. > Soros is often viewed as a liberal mouthpiece propagandist He's the target of unfortunate conspiracy theories, but I want to get this straight: you don't believe Soros is a liberal propagandist? Do you also not think the Koch brothers are libertarian propagandists? Of course, they all are! But yeah, I strongly disagree. I think censoring people who disagree, combined with the power and income inequality that was created by the plutocrats, will together kill our country. I don't want to give away my identity since I'm aware there are lots of people who would try to get me fired for disagreeing with them, but I've seen ethnic conflict up close and see every sign that the US is heading in that direction.
    - Klinky 5y ago
      >Those are all very different words. Not really. You are arguing that misinformation needs to have a place on this platform, and have a chance to be heard. Again an outright misinformed post, that couldn't even back itself up, needs to be here. You are defending and legitimizing it with this point of view. Much evil has been done in the world because people "tolerated" things and just let injustice slide. >you don't believe Soros is a liberal propagandist Yes, but practically everyone is a propagandist, and has bias. Though he has more sway because money speaks. >I've seen ethnic conflict up close and see every sign that the US is heading in that direction. Where have you been for the last 250 years? The US was founded on genocide and slavery. Ethnic conflict has been here forever.

syops 5y ago

From my perspective the U.S. has steadily shifted to the right the past 40 years. I doubt that a person advocating Reagan’s policies would be supported by today’s Republican Party. We have entered into territory where the paradox of tolerance is very much a reality. Tolerance is no longer a good option when confronting disingenuous comments. There is a significant segment of the American public that simply can no longer be reasoned with. As an example people who believe that Michelle Obama is a man can not be reasoned with.

monoideism 5y ago
This is what has actually happened to the country's political values (click animate to view the data over the past several decades): https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/interactives/political-polarization-1994-2017/ https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/interactives/political-... Here is a more detailed discussion of the data. Tragically, Pew Research describes the situation as dire even back in 2014, which was before polarization really started to accelerate. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/ https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2014/06/12/political-po... As you can see, both parties are moved toward the extremes, but in recent years the left has moved further to the left than the right toward the right. These moves to the extremes of the right and left are driven partly by social media, and partly by traditional media (since most traditional media these days originates in social media: original reportage is getting increasingly rare).
- monocasa 5y ago
  That says nothing about the actual policies, only how polarized they are against each other relatively. Since 1992, both parties have moved to the right, just the Republicans have moved moreso. That's how we ended up with Newt Gingrich and the Heritage Foundation's 1994 HEART Act becoming Obamacare and radioactive to the Republicans two decades later. Go check out the concept of the overton window and see how a window can move to the right while both sides become more distinct within that window.
  - monoideism 5y ago