5 ms·

It's instructive in the sense of knowing where to avoid anti-knowledge lunatics hellbent on destroying objective truth.

aww_dang 4y ago
Why is it so traumatic to encounter different views? I feel like the levels have increased over the past few years. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-stochastic-terrorism-uses-disgust-to-incite-violence/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-stochastic-te...
- nhchris 4y ago
  > Propagandists have fomented disgust to dehumanize Jewish people as vermin; Black people as subhuman apes; Indigenous people as “savages”; immigrants as “animals” unworthy of protection; and members of the LGBTQ community as sexual deviants and “predators” who prey upon children. As usual, everyone is affected by stochastic terrorism except whites. Because in those cases, attacks are "random", and entirely divorced from the rhetoric prevalent in academia and the media. This will eventually be used as a pretext for censorship. https://thuletide.wordpress.com/2022/12/11/stochastic-terrorism-non-white-academics-promote-violence-against-whites-with-real-world-consequences/ https://thuletide.wordpress.com/2022/12/11/stochastic-terror...
  - mikeyouse 4y ago
    Actual white nationalism on HN is a fun treat. This is the dude you're affirmatively quoting, though I suspect you know that. https://gab.com/thuletide/posts/106756852117838315 https://gab.com/thuletide/posts/106756852117838315 > There are basically four issues that actually matter in modern politics: > 1. The worldwide genocide of Whites > 2. The destruction of the family > 3. The destruction of Christianity > 4. The rapidly encroaching totalitarian, China/USSR-style technocracy Read the replies for some fun insight into the type of people who agree with you both!
    - nhchris 4y ago
      Again as usual, the evidence presented is avoided in favor of ad hominem. You are counting on readers turning off their brain and ignoring it, once they learn the messenger is a bad person, aren't you?
      - defrost 4y ago
        Highly selective quoting by thuletide of relatively few fringe opinions isn't evidence of a serious widespread plan to exterminate the "white race".
        nhchris 4y ago
        I only argued it is evidence that the charge of "stochastic terrorism" is applied very selectively. And the evidence isn't "opinion" - it gives examples of mainstream publications and professors that you can verify yourself.
      - mikeyouse 4y ago
        Nah, most people know how seriously to take the incoherent ramblings of dimwitted white nationalists without any outside help. And I'm less than surprised your post history is filled with scientific racism and complaints that ChatGPT doesn't properly discuss the number of Jewish people on Wall St. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34425317 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34425317
        nhchris 4y ago
        Yet ChatGPT eagerly discusses the number of white people on Wall St. Funny how you omitted that, when the disparate treatment was the point, not any one example in isolation. When the truth isn't on your side, all you're left with is mudslinging and misdirection.
        aww_dang 4y ago
        Some will discuss anything but the topic at hand. It is telling that they need to review your post history instead of engaging with the topic.
  - aww_dang 4y ago
    The misapplied premise of "objective truth" is already being used for censorship in the name of "fact check". We don't need to go deeper into the specific machinations. The premises are easily debunked and self-refuting. Equating "misinformation" with terrorism and hate speech is hyperbole designed to rationalize the paradigm. My intent in citing that article was to illustrate the extreme lengths authoritarians are willing to go in terms of exaggerated rhetoric. People are increasingly upset by challenges to their worldview. They identify so closely with the narratives that define their tribe. There's also some inconsistency here when they simultaneously celebrate themselves as tolerant and inclusive. Another inconsistency is the claimed moral distinction between "punching down" and "punching up". Interesting how offensive dissent from mainstream narrative has become. It is easier to empathize with and understand the frustration of those in the minority view. Wikipedia and the entire media agrees with their claims, yet they are traumatized by disagreement? You'd think they'd be more confident and comfortable in their position.
- mikeyouse 4y ago
  "Different Views" Conservapedia is a collection of re:re:re:re:re email forwards sent by your dumbest relative. The first few articles I clicked on Vaccines: > Many vaccines, including the Covid vaccines, are based on aborted fetal tissue, apparently as a way to try to increase public acceptance of abortion. > There are numerous reasons why many people prefer to avoid vaccines, but laws and other rules (often pushed into place by those who stand to make significant profit) frequently mandate them. Quantum Mechanics: > Quantum mechanics is the branch of physics describing fundamental uncertainty in subatomic behavior.[1] Observation converts infinite uncertainty about where a particle is into a definite position. The logic of quantum mechanics predicts the possibility of the Resurrection, akin to quantum tunneling. Atheism: > Not possessing a religious basis for morality, which can provide a basis for objective morality, atheism is fundamentally incapable of providing a coherent system of morality.[1] See also: Atheism and ethics and Atheism and the problem of evil > For example, atheists have been the biggest mass murderers in history (see: Atheism and mass murder and Atheistic communism, mass murder and sociopathic leaders). Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate regarding the loss of life due to atheistic communism is that communism caused the death of approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987 (See also: Atheism and communism).[2]
  - aww_dang 4y ago
    You're presenting a false set of alternatives here. Wikipedia doesn't represent "objective truth" in my view. Nor do I agree with everything Conservapedia has to say. Do Wikipedia editors claim divine revelation as a source, or are they just omnipotent? As a point of fact, Wikipedia editors get into their own brand of legalese where they decide which establishment press sources are canon. So maybe the CNN reporters are omnipotent or acquire information via divine revelation? No, this is plainly false. Trivial research will reveal that both CNN reporters and online encyclopedia editors are fallible humans. Worth thinking about the premises involved here. If objective truth exists, is it accessible for humans? Some would go as far as saying it doesn't exist at all. Not my personal view. There are axiomatic propositions we can understand to be true independent of our fallible senses. Two parallel lines will never meet. A triangle has three sides. Men are fallible, imperfect observers and prone to corruption. I'd rank these much higher in precedence than anything Wikipedia has to say. YMMV, but starting from these premises I try to exercise a bit of tolerance when encountering different views.
- bediger4000 4y ago
  That might be a good question for Andrew Schlafly. In some senses, different views are great, as are opportunities to hone your beliefs against competing beliefs. I've changed my mind on some issues due to reading competing beliefs. My home town newspaper (Denver Post) would run Paul Krugman editorials in the business section regularly, and the now defunct Rocky Mountain News would run Buckley and Sowell. The issue I've got with Conservapedia and the like is that it's basically bad faith automatic gainsaying. After a while, countering bad faith opposition becomes a waste of time. Lies run around the world twice before truth gets it's shoes on, as Ben Franklin once said. It gets tiresome repeatedly spending thought on an editorial writer, only to discover once again that their reasoning is cleverly disguised circular.
refurb 4y ago
If you think Wikipedia is "objective truth" then I have a bridge to sell you.
- arp242 4y ago
  No one here claimed it is, but at least it tries, for the most part, and it sure is a hell of a lot better than Conservapedia, which ranges from "Christian fundamentalist" to "batshit insane even by Christian fundamentalist standards".
  - refurb 4y ago
    I dont know, ive seen a few highly political wikipedia entries where it’s clearly one-sided.
    - arp242 4y ago
      There are certainly topics where it does better than others; as I've said before: Wikipedia is an effortocracy not a meritocracy: whoever puts in the most effort "wins". However, as a policy it does try to be neutral, and there are ways to escalate things if one group dominates things too much (although that also requires effort). In general, it's really not that bad.
      - NoZebra120vClip 4y ago
        Neutrality is a false goal and just prevents egregious sorts of editorializing and extremism of certain types. Wikipedia's systematic bias is supported by a few methods: meticulous curation of its pool of "reliable sources" and rejection of any pool of sources which disagrees with existing zeitgeists, as well as the ability of an established user base to form and enforce consensus and then give marching orders to the rest, on pain of bannination. It's somewhat peculiar, if you are able to consider extremists utterly dispassionately, that Wikipedians support and encourage extremists who support certain ideologies, we may assign algebraic monikers such as G, B, P, or L. But Wikipedians also frown upon extremist ideologies that are opposed to their zeitgeist, such as naturopaths, Christians, Nazis/white supremacists, or nationalists of any sort who aren't from the US or British Empire. So neutrality on Wikipedia just means that they will support the same extremist ideologies propounded by their list of sources, and supported by the major contributors to articles, policies, and consensus. And that they will tone down the language so that it is dispassionate and "encyclopedic" unless an article is explicitly denouncing an extremist ideology they don't like, and in those cases they explicitly waive their policies on phrasing and words to avoid. It is unsurprising when you consider the ideology which launched Wikipedia in the context of F/OSS. F/OSS and GNU are explicitly extremist--perhaps we can consider them lawful good extremist ideologies--but if you've paid attention to anything written by rms, Cory Doctorow, esr, or other F/OSS proponents, you can't deny that they've gone to extremes to keep software (and other stuff) free and open.

Why is it so traumatic to encounter different views? I feel like the levels have increased over the past few years. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-stochastic-terrorism-uses-disgust-to-incite-violence/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-stochastic-te...

nhchris 4y ago
> Propagandists have fomented disgust to dehumanize Jewish people as vermin; Black people as subhuman apes; Indigenous people as “savages”; immigrants as “animals” unworthy of protection; and members of the LGBTQ community as sexual deviants and “predators” who prey upon children. As usual, everyone is affected by stochastic terrorism except whites. Because in those cases, attacks are "random", and entirely divorced from the rhetoric prevalent in academia and the media. This will eventually be used as a pretext for censorship. https://thuletide.wordpress.com/2022/12/11/stochastic-terrorism-non-white-academics-promote-violence-against-whites-with-real-world-consequences/ https://thuletide.wordpress.com/2022/12/11/stochastic-terror...
- mikeyouse 4y ago
  Actual white nationalism on HN is a fun treat. This is the dude you're affirmatively quoting, though I suspect you know that. https://gab.com/thuletide/posts/106756852117838315 https://gab.com/thuletide/posts/106756852117838315 > There are basically four issues that actually matter in modern politics: > 1. The worldwide genocide of Whites > 2. The destruction of the family > 3. The destruction of Christianity > 4. The rapidly encroaching totalitarian, China/USSR-style technocracy Read the replies for some fun insight into the type of people who agree with you both!
  - nhchris 4y ago
    Again as usual, the evidence presented is avoided in favor of ad hominem. You are counting on readers turning off their brain and ignoring it, once they learn the messenger is a bad person, aren't you?
    - defrost 4y ago
      Highly selective quoting by thuletide of relatively few fringe opinions isn't evidence of a serious widespread plan to exterminate the "white race".
      - nhchris 4y ago
        I only argued it is evidence that the charge of "stochastic terrorism" is applied very selectively. And the evidence isn't "opinion" - it gives examples of mainstream publications and professors that you can verify yourself.
    - mikeyouse 4y ago
      Nah, most people know how seriously to take the incoherent ramblings of dimwitted white nationalists without any outside help. And I'm less than surprised your post history is filled with scientific racism and complaints that ChatGPT doesn't properly discuss the number of Jewish people on Wall St. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34425317 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34425317
      - nhchris 4y ago
        Yet ChatGPT eagerly discusses the number of white people on Wall St. Funny how you omitted that, when the disparate treatment was the point, not any one example in isolation. When the truth isn't on your side, all you're left with is mudslinging and misdirection.
        aww_dang 4y ago
        Some will discuss anything but the topic at hand. It is telling that they need to review your post history instead of engaging with the topic.
- aww_dang 4y ago
  The misapplied premise of "objective truth" is already being used for censorship in the name of "fact check". We don't need to go deeper into the specific machinations. The premises are easily debunked and self-refuting. Equating "misinformation" with terrorism and hate speech is hyperbole designed to rationalize the paradigm. My intent in citing that article was to illustrate the extreme lengths authoritarians are willing to go in terms of exaggerated rhetoric. People are increasingly upset by challenges to their worldview. They identify so closely with the narratives that define their tribe. There's also some inconsistency here when they simultaneously celebrate themselves as tolerant and inclusive. Another inconsistency is the claimed moral distinction between "punching down" and "punching up". Interesting how offensive dissent from mainstream narrative has become. It is easier to empathize with and understand the frustration of those in the minority view. Wikipedia and the entire media agrees with their claims, yet they are traumatized by disagreement? You'd think they'd be more confident and comfortable in their position.
mikeyouse 4y ago
"Different Views" Conservapedia is a collection of re:re:re:re:re email forwards sent by your dumbest relative. The first few articles I clicked on Vaccines: > Many vaccines, including the Covid vaccines, are based on aborted fetal tissue, apparently as a way to try to increase public acceptance of abortion. > There are numerous reasons why many people prefer to avoid vaccines, but laws and other rules (often pushed into place by those who stand to make significant profit) frequently mandate them. Quantum Mechanics: > Quantum mechanics is the branch of physics describing fundamental uncertainty in subatomic behavior.[1] Observation converts infinite uncertainty about where a particle is into a definite position. The logic of quantum mechanics predicts the possibility of the Resurrection, akin to quantum tunneling. Atheism: > Not possessing a religious basis for morality, which can provide a basis for objective morality, atheism is fundamentally incapable of providing a coherent system of morality.[1] See also: Atheism and ethics and Atheism and the problem of evil > For example, atheists have been the biggest mass murderers in history (see: Atheism and mass murder and Atheistic communism, mass murder and sociopathic leaders). Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate regarding the loss of life due to atheistic communism is that communism caused the death of approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987 (See also: Atheism and communism).[2]
- aww_dang 4y ago
  You're presenting a false set of alternatives here. Wikipedia doesn't represent "objective truth" in my view. Nor do I agree with everything Conservapedia has to say. Do Wikipedia editors claim divine revelation as a source, or are they just omnipotent? As a point of fact, Wikipedia editors get into their own brand of legalese where they decide which establishment press sources are canon. So maybe the CNN reporters are omnipotent or acquire information via divine revelation? No, this is plainly false. Trivial research will reveal that both CNN reporters and online encyclopedia editors are fallible humans. Worth thinking about the premises involved here. If objective truth exists, is it accessible for humans? Some would go as far as saying it doesn't exist at all. Not my personal view. There are axiomatic propositions we can understand to be true independent of our fallible senses. Two parallel lines will never meet. A triangle has three sides. Men are fallible, imperfect observers and prone to corruption. I'd rank these much higher in precedence than anything Wikipedia has to say. YMMV, but starting from these premises I try to exercise a bit of tolerance when encountering different views.
bediger4000 4y ago
That might be a good question for Andrew Schlafly. In some senses, different views are great, as are opportunities to hone your beliefs against competing beliefs. I've changed my mind on some issues due to reading competing beliefs. My home town newspaper (Denver Post) would run Paul Krugman editorials in the business section regularly, and the now defunct Rocky Mountain News would run Buckley and Sowell. The issue I've got with Conservapedia and the like is that it's basically bad faith automatic gainsaying. After a while, countering bad faith opposition becomes a waste of time. Lies run around the world twice before truth gets it's shoes on, as Ben Franklin once said. It gets tiresome repeatedly spending thought on an editorial writer, only to discover once again that their reasoning is cleverly disguised circular.

refurb 4y ago

If you think Wikipedia is "objective truth" then I have a bridge to sell you.

arp242 4y ago
No one here claimed it is, but at least it tries, for the most part, and it sure is a hell of a lot better than Conservapedia, which ranges from "Christian fundamentalist" to "batshit insane even by Christian fundamentalist standards".
- refurb 4y ago
  I dont know, ive seen a few highly political wikipedia entries where it’s clearly one-sided.
  - arp242 4y ago
    There are certainly topics where it does better than others; as I've said before: Wikipedia is an effortocracy not a meritocracy: whoever puts in the most effort "wins". However, as a policy it does try to be neutral, and there are ways to escalate things if one group dominates things too much (although that also requires effort). In general, it's really not that bad.
    - NoZebra120vClip 4y ago
      Neutrality is a false goal and just prevents egregious sorts of editorializing and extremism of certain types. Wikipedia's systematic bias is supported by a few methods: meticulous curation of its pool of "reliable sources" and rejection of any pool of sources which disagrees with existing zeitgeists, as well as the ability of an established user base to form and enforce consensus and then give marching orders to the rest, on pain of bannination. It's somewhat peculiar, if you are able to consider extremists utterly dispassionately, that Wikipedians support and encourage extremists who support certain ideologies, we may assign algebraic monikers such as G, B, P, or L. But Wikipedians also frown upon extremist ideologies that are opposed to their zeitgeist, such as naturopaths, Christians, Nazis/white supremacists, or nationalists of any sort who aren't from the US or British Empire. So neutrality on Wikipedia just means that they will support the same extremist ideologies propounded by their list of sources, and supported by the major contributors to articles, policies, and consensus. And that they will tone down the language so that it is dispassionate and "encyclopedic" unless an article is explicitly denouncing an extremist ideology they don't like, and in those cases they explicitly waive their policies on phrasing and words to avoid. It is unsurprising when you consider the ideology which launched Wikipedia in the context of F/OSS. F/OSS and GNU are explicitly extremist--perhaps we can consider them lawful good extremist ideologies--but if you've paid attention to anything written by rms, Cory Doctorow, esr, or other F/OSS proponents, you can't deny that they've gone to extremes to keep software (and other stuff) free and open.