4 ms·

Yeah, I have noticed that with a lot of HN threads that resolve around eating meat. It gets to a level of tinfoil-hat that I'm absolutely not used to on this we

• hnbad 4y ago
  HN has always been tolerant of this kind of fringe, it comes with the territory of its (right) libertarian bent. The fringe just didn't have as much political potential until a few years ago and has been emboldened to be more open about its views. They've also had years to test out ways to be open about their beliefs while hiding behind a guise of "civility" or "curiosity" and spreading blatant lies only to discard them and move on to the next talking point when caught. HN is incapable of fixing this "problem" because doing so would go against its supposed neutrality and impartiality while the people in question are usually lucid enough not to resort to outright slurs or insults that would allow them to be banned for a breach of civility. As a German I have heard many stories about the nice neighbor or uncle who just happened to actively go on to do war crimes despite otherwise being such a nice person. Civility is not a basis for productive debate, it's a shield for reprehensible views you wouldn't dare to spell out in polite company.
  • throwaway4aday 4y ago
    > They've also had years to test out ways to be open about their beliefs while hiding behind a guise of "civility" or "curiosity" and spreading blatant lies only to discard them and move on to the next talking point when caught. Now who's engaging in conspiracy thinking?
    • hnbad 4y ago
      I'm talking about well-known phenomena that can readily be observed in online debate culture and social spaces over the past decade: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/sealioning-internet-trolling https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/sealioning-int... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Concern_troll https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Concern_troll https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_policing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_policing I'm not sure what you think this has to do with "conspiracy thinking". I'm not saying this is an organized effort. While particularly rowdy online communities do organize via places like 4chan (and its various even less palatable siblings) and KiwiFarms, the shift on HN can much more easily be described by looking at how fringe politics generally spread in online spaces. Innuendo Studios' video series "The Alt-Right Playbook"[0] is worth a watch if you are new to this concept. Heck, Jordan B Peterson wildly holds celebrity status at this point and for the longest time his interview strategy consisted of making general statements implying political positions and then accusing the interviewer of putting words in his mouth when those positions were challenged. Literally "just asking questions" and "stating facts" (which even with proper context were not always actually true, e.g. the entire lobster thing was based on the assumption that lobsters and humans react the same way to the same biochemical reactions). Right-wing fringe groups have been talking about various flavors of "red pilling" since before "alt-right" even became a thing. Even before "GamerGate" (which shifted a lot of young male gamers towards extremely far right views) you'd hear the concept in the "Manosphere" (i.e. MGTOWs, PUAs, MRAs and so on) to refer to "the truth about gender roles" (sexual market value, female promiscuity, but also "true facts" like male suicide rates but always presented as part of a misogynist narrative yearning for some imagined patriarchic past based on 1950s advertisements). The idea has since been refined to the point that "red pilling" has moved from simple "truth bombing" (i.e. plainly citing factoids supposedly supporting the narrative) to "just asking questions" (see above) and "it's just a joke" (hence the phrase particularly popular among online antisemitic white ethnonationalists: "when the joke really lands", i.e. when you no longer see it as an edgy joke but as the truth). Your use of the term is an interesting reversal of the accusation of "conspiracy thinking" by the way. The term is usually used to describe "anti-establishment" accusations of "powerful elites" (Rothschilds, WHO, George Soros, Bill Gates, whatever) conspiring to control the world. Even the actual Nazis spread conspiracy theories about "international bankers" (or simply "the Jews" when civility was not required) being "in control" and blaming the economic collapse and the loss of WW1 on them. What I'm claiming is far more mundane: 1. Far-right extremists and right-wing fringe people exist. 2. At least some of them are online and hang around in the same spaces as normal people do. 3. At least some of them understand that if they just open their mouths and plainly state their views they'll be banned from those spaces. 4. At least some of those still want to either state or advertise their politics in those spaces in ways that won't get them immediately banned. 5. At least some of those succeed in doing that. Of course this requires acknowledging that ideologies exist and people can hold genuine political views rather than simply looking out for their own financial gain. And historically liberals (and libertarians) have a track record of not being able to comprehend this or to believe "bad politics" (i.e. ideological opposition) is just a matter of not having access to enough information (e.g. "white supremacists only hate brown people because they don't understand how immigrants benefit the economy"). This post by the way is a perfect example of why these tactics work: 1. You replied with a single short sentence that probably took you no time. 2. You broadly dismissed everything I said without pointing out any specific claim as wrong or giving any actual argument I could respond to, making it hard to falsify without "rambling". 3. You didn't directly attack me or what I said (e.g. "That's conspiracy thinking!") but instead merely implied a statement by asking a rhetorical question, thus appearing more civil without changing what you actually wanted to say. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xGawJIseNY&list=PLJA_jUddXvY7v0VkYRbANnTnzkA_HMFtQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xGawJIseNY&list=PLJA_jUddXv...
• ferruck 4y ago
  The most interesting part - at least for me - is how unapologetic such conspiracies can be expressed in these "no more meat" threads, whereas other conspiracies in other threads are heavily downvoted and countered through comments. I slowly tend to believe that at least a vocal minority of the Bay Area tech bros are really creeping out on the idea that they might be loosing their beloved meat. Just for disclosure: I eat meat myself, I love it and I want to continue to do so. But I also see the need to reduce meat consumption generally and personally, for health and ecological reasons. But billionaires wanting to forbid meat consumption to follow some new world order? Please stop the shit-chat. At least here in Germany meat production is still heavily subsidized [0]. [0] https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/tierwirtschaft-erhaelt-13-milliarden-euro-vom-staat-jahr-fuer-jahr-a-1dbac670-2cf4-4d09-b426-75a11c8e0569 https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/tierwirtschaft-erhaelt-13-...
  • tommit 4y ago
    That's really well put, and I think is exactly what strikes me as off about these threads as opposed to what I'm used to on HN. It really seems like these conspiracy theories are way more indulged here than they would in any other thread. I'm with you, also from Germany and very rarely eat meat (my rule of thumb is that if it's already dead and in front of me, I'm not going to save anyone by throwing it away -- think BBQs and the likes. Or when I visit my grandparents). Also, I'm firm in the camp that everyone can make their own choices, and don't shame anybody for eating meat. I just don't think it's viable going forward and I've made the choice a few years back to limit myself, because to me it seems only logical. Also like you said, it simply shouldn't be subsidized as it is. If someone wants to eat meat badly enough that they're willing to pay large prices -- great. If not, there are numerous protein sources out there that take less toll on the environment.
    • ferruck 4y ago
      > if it's already dead and in front of me, I'm not going to save anyone by throwing it away That's a sane and reflected reasoning that many of us could take as an example from time to time. I myself have heavily reduced meat consumption, too, though probably not as much as you have. The best thing to do as a starter IMHO is to reduce the "unnecessary" things: Cold cuts can easily replaced by other - vegetarian - alternatives, skillet dishes mostly work with mushrooms only too, and diced ham is pretty much nothing more than glorified salt (of course this is hyperbolic, but you get the idea). By doing without this "hidden" meat you can drastically reduce your consumption without having to forgo the places where meat is the best: steaks, rips, pickled knuckle (!) and so on. I've combined this principle with buying the remaining meat at a local eco butcher (which reduces your consumption even further due to prices) and am morally calmed, at least for now. > Also like you said, it simply shouldn't be subsidized as it is. If someone wants to eat meat badly enough that they're willing to pay large prices -- great. If not, there are numerous protein sources out there that take less toll on the environment. The only problem I see with this is that then meat becomes the food of the rich, which is unfair. I don't say that meat shouldn't be more expensive or that I have a better solution, it's just a thing to keep in mind, IMHO.
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• throway444 4y ago
  > apparently it's more likely to have an "elite intellectual class" in the background, scheming to deprive us from nutrients, rather than the fact that raising and killing billions of animals each year could simply have adverse side-effects for our planet. I'm not saying some people don't take it too far but there is some justification here. Many people disagree with the assertion that current farming and herding practices are bad for the planet. The interpretation of "bad for the planet" is key here since those that disagree see this from the standpoint of the environment serving to support human life rather than protecting the environment for its own sake. Taking that view means there are very strong tradeoffs that need to be considered such as how reducing meat consumption or reducing fertilizer use will affect human health and happiness. Many people weigh those against each other and find that the benefit outweighs the harm and so argue that we should look elsewhere to compensate for those effects. The conspiracy talk has its roots in seeing that only one side is being pushed hard in the media. This results in some pretty obvious media manipulation with some of the most glaring recent examples being under-reporting of the Dutch farmer protests, smearing of the Canadian trucker protest, and mis-reporting of the Sri Lanka crisis focusing on "economic mismanagement" rather than pointing out the precise policies that led to the implosion of their agriculture industry. As a Canadian, I saw with my own eyes the difference between reality and what reporters were saying about the trucker protest. That was a slap in the face and changed my opinion of our media from being perhaps a bit biased towards the current party in power to perceiving them as utter sycophants willing to blatantly lie to an entire country to serve their own purposes. Those three events aren't unrelated either, they all have roots in policy being propagated around the world to attempt to drastically cut the amount of petrochemicals being used but those policies are cutting at the very foundations of our civilization when they are applied to food production and transportation of goods. You've heard the phrase "don't fuck with the money" when applied to business since it's a sure way to destroy the company, well this is the equivalent with civilizations "don't fuck with the food supply" if you do then the world won't be burning by 2050 it'll be on fire in 6 months while everyone tears each other to shreds over the last bag of grain.