6 ms·

You will not get an interesting conversation on these topics on an American discussion board. These topics are a minefield. Plenty of the things which are push

You will not get an interesting conversation on these topics on an American discussion board. These topics are a minefield. Plenty of the things which are pushed unconditionally in the US right now should be debatable and debated. Some concepts like cultural appropriation look clearly dubious to my French self. The issue is that having a debate has become impossible. In some circles, you will be quartered for daring to express that there exists differences between men and women which might not be socially constructed.

DeathArrow 3y ago
> You will not get an interesting conversation on these topics on an American discussion board. These topics are a minefield. That's a problem. Why have people become so afraid to speak their minds? We live in a democracy or not?
- Moissanite 3y ago
  > We live in a democracy or not? Not really, no. Setting aside pedantry about the US being a republic and not a pure democracy, the fact is that wealthy elites decide election outcomes now. You ended up with Trump because elites in Russia wanted him elected more than elites in the US wanted Clinton. You got rid of him because elites in the US had woken up to the fact that they weren't the only player in that game anymore. Culture wars are a proxy battlefield in much the same way that Ukraine is.
  - DeathArrow 3y ago
    By we, I didn't specify US citizens, but the collective western world. The situation isn't much different in EU. Sadly, we can't wait for the train to stop at next station and get out, because it's the only train we have.
  - kome 3y ago
    > "You ended up with Trump because elites in Russia wanted him elected more than elites in the US wanted Clinton" This is so detached from reality, that is not even trying to understand why trump happened and why it may happens again.
    - Moissanite 3y ago
      I should really have said "elites, including those in antagonistic countries like Russia". My main point was more about the elites than where they are from.
    - Moissanite 3y ago
      Do you believe the appeal of Trump to disaffected Americans would be enough to win him the election, if big business (Koch et al) turned against the Republican party? Genuine question, because I feel like that is where the lever really is.
      - woooooo 3y ago
        Very different assertion. OP was saying Russian elites installed Trump and us Americans were helpless victims.
        Moissanite 3y ago
        I'm the OP - and it's more complicated than that. Foreign powers fermented the discord in American society (which was already there for sure, but could have been much less toxic without external influence), hence describing it as a proxy war and not a foreign-backed coup.
        woooooo 3y ago
        The presidential campaigns had a billion dollars apiece, plus more from SuperPACs. Blaming the Russians for the outcome is just evading responsibility.
        selimthegrim 3y ago
        Fomented or fermented?
        Moissanite 3y ago
        Yes!
  - stephen_g 3y ago
    Any effect that Russia could have possibly had has been massively and wildly exaggerated. If anything, that election showed that elites don't decide the outcomes. Clinton did appeal to a lot of 'elites' but not to many rank and file Democrat voters, large numbers of whom didn't turn up and vote. Trump, on the other hand, didn't appeal to most 'elites', but did appeal to a lot of rank and file Republican voters, who did turn up and vote. That more than explains Trump's win without having to resort to foreign boogeymen (for which the majority of the evidence never solidified beyond being just hearsay) to explain the loss of an uninspiring candidate.
  - red-iron-pine 3y ago
    The Russians have an advanced, complex, and deep system of influence and espionage, but they're not the only players in this game. China, Israel, the Saudis, even allies like France, all push on US politics. Some of them, like Israel and China, push pretty hard, albeit with different goals. Also worth noting that in many cases they're just co-opting the system set up by US powerbrokers, e.g. Tucker Carlson of Fox News talking about how great Putin is.
    - DeathArrow 3y ago
      Giving the fact that US spies and tries to blackmail all its allies, it's hard to blame anyone for spying on US, is it?
  - yamtaddle 3y ago
    > Setting aside pedantry about the US being a republic and not a pure democracy, Actually political scientists routinely refer to the US as a democracy. You're splitting a hair that experts do not. The word "democracy" does not only mean direct democracy. Mentioning this non-issue at all is a signal, but maybe not the one you hoped for.
    - Moissanite 3y ago
      I actually thought of this because of a line in The West Wing where the President is making a point about representation, then went off on a googling exploration to understand a bit whether it is a meaningful distinction - most of what I read seemed to reinforce the notion that the difference is important. In day-to-day life it certainly doesn't matter - but when you are attempting to discuss the nature of that political system itself, I don't think it is at all unreasonable to call out the distinction and decide whether to discuss it further. No need for snide jabs.
- csa 3y ago
  > Why have people become so afraid to speak their minds? A sufficiently large group of people have realized that they can function legally as a social lynch mob. A person can stand by their ideals all they want, but if their livelihood and/or social standing have been taken from them, then expressing those ideals doesn’t serve them very well. Many people just find it easier not to engage. History will not reflect kindly on these groups — they will be mocked (“crazy things people actually believed in the 2020s!”). > We live in a democracy or not? Regarding democracy, the most vocal zealots on both extremes of the political spectrum support decidedly undemocratic positions.
  - DeathArrow 3y ago
    So people like to speak about freedom but are afraid of actually living in freedom?
    - seb1204 3y ago
      In my opinion many want democracy but few only exercise their democratic duty (vote) and fewer are active beyond that. Couch potatoes and complacent consumers will get ruled by dictators in the long run.
      - oneeyedpigeon 3y ago
        I don't see any contradiction between wanting to live in a democracy and taking an active part in it. In fact, quite the opposite — I think there's something truly anti-democratic about places like Australia where voting is compulsory. In my ideal world, fewer people would vote — everyone would still, of course, have the right to, just fewer would choose to.
      - kbelder 3y ago
        Well, about 65% vote. So far from all, but most do.
    - csa 3y ago
      > So people like to speak about freedom but are afraid of actually living in freedom? Many/most of the folks I know who speak out loudest about “freedom” are also the most willing to restrict it… for others. What’s the saying… freedom for me but not for thee? Before I come across as overly cynical, let me just add that most Americans I’m around have a very laissez faire attitude about most things. They are just very quiet about it, living their lives peacefully. I’m a believer in the very moderate silent majority in the US. It’s just hard to notice that it exists when pretty much all mainstream media and social media are designed to favor the promotion of extremist stances.
- ben_w 3y ago
  > That's a problem. Why have people become so afraid to speak their minds? We live in a democracy or not? Always was, IMO what you're experiencing with this is just the Overton window shifting around you. Goes both ways: People hardly ever discussed trans topics when I was a teenager and I don't know if that was a taboo or merely lack of awareness, but I do know that lesbian gay and bisexual topics were tabooed.
- detuur 3y ago
  Do _you_ want to be on the side that argues that our modern interpretations of age of consent may be a fad? Or that one day science may provide incontrovertible evidence that racism is entirely rational and appropriate? Arguing these is pointless, because they are violate dogmas that underpin our modern ideology. They are not up for argument. If another ideology suggests that racism is actually a-ok, then we consider it clearly flawed, because dogmatically, ideologies that come to that conclusion must be flawed. And not just flawed, because these fundamental dogmas are what shapes our notions of "good" and "evil". Not adhering to these dogmas makes you evil. I must add, this is not a fallacy of some sort. If I were thrown into another society where everyone approves of racism, I am still attached to my personal dogmas. I would consider such a society unjust and warped. As a matter of fact, there's plenty of personal dogmas our current society violates, and I consider our current society and its ideology unjust and flawed. Which raises another point, which is that our society does not have a monolithical ideology. It has an emergent ideology that arises from common agreement, but there's plenty of people in our society these days who disagree with several of the dogmas. And that's what makes them "bad" or "evil". The only way to argue someone out of a personal dogma is to convince them that whatever your dogmas are is reflective of absolute good, evil, and/or truth. This is the subject of what is likely one of the oldest philosophical debates and has spawned several religions.
  - WastingMyTime89 3y ago
    > Do _you_ want to be on the side that argues that This is not a two sided discussion where each camps agree in block with a set list of propositions. It's also not manichean with things being either completely true or false, right or wrong or, good or evil. You are not either for or against. If you believe that, you are the problem. We should be able to explore these subjects in their full complexity with the disagreement that entails. It's not even possible anymore in academia.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
    > If another ideology suggests that racism is actually a-ok We almost universally agree that racism is not ok but what's racism? Some think affirmative action is racist.
  - 3y ago
- JKCalhoun 3y ago
  > Why have people become so afraid to speak their minds? Maybe this is an unpopular opinion, but I put the blame on those afraid to speak their minds. I try always to speak my mind — whether it flies in the face of popular opinion or no. I take the downvotes — I sort of like that they have me pause and reconsider my opinion. But if in the end I feel I am still justified the downvotes just become a kind of war-wound or something that I take some small amount of pride in. I'm not sure why everyone doesn't do the same.
  - bombcar 3y ago
    Because for vast swaths of the population, even the tiniest risk that they could lose their job/livelyhood isn't worth it, and especially not worth it online.
    - DeathArrow 3y ago
      But living a life in fear, distrust and disgust is worth it? Is not worth fighting for an alternative?
      - bombcar 3y ago
        The vast majority just live a life offline.
  - DeathArrow 3y ago
    Downwoting me on HN or any online forum, doesn't affect me a bit. I can stand the enemies even if they outnumber me by 100x. Occasionally I can outsmart them, so I can take a point. But denying me the possibility to provide food for my two kids, my wife and me, is another thing. And there are just two possible responses: either I won't talk anything meaningful to strangers, or, having calculated my chances, I would aggressively defend my right and my children's rights to speak our minds. And by aggressively I mean very, as in revolutionary very. You threaten my very existence, and then all bets are loose and anything that will let me and my people win over you is permitted.
bell-cot 3y ago
> You will not get an interesting conversation on these topics on an American discussion board. These topics are a minefield. I hope you're wrong, but... It would be lovely to see some actual historical perspective on America's periodic obsessions. Post-9/11 anti-terrorism and airport security theater are still here. The Vietnam-era obsession of the left with being anti-war (while the right was still pro-war and anti-communist) has almost reversed. We had McCarthyism in the 1950's. Etc. The Great Awakenings ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Awakening https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Awakening ) should probably be thrown into the list. And the Salem Witch Trials ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_witch_trials#Political_context https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_witch_trials#Political_c... ). And...
formerly_proven 3y ago
And maybe someday we'll have a discussion about the forced superiority complex with which euros insert themselves into online conversations.
- dang 3y ago
  Slurs and swipes are not ok on HN and will get you banned here. Can you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules? We'd appreciate it.
- DeathArrow 3y ago
  Stating the obvious like GP did doesn't mean superiority or superiority complex. Your comment on the other part...
oneeyedpigeon 3y ago
> In some circles, you will be quartered for daring to express [view] where [view] exists at any point on the political spectrum. > that there exists differences between men and women which might not be socially constructed It depends on the context for me. If you're stating that point to make an interesting and insightful comment, all well and good. If you're just using it to bash trans people, it's less valuable IMO.
- WastingMyTime89 3y ago
  I have no opinion whatsoever regarding transpeople outside of everyone should be able to do whatever they want with themselves but I'm amused that you could basically rephrase your sentence like that: > If you're stating that point to [say something I agree with], all well and good. If you're just using it to [say something I disagree with], it's less valuable IMO
  - oneeyedpigeon 3y ago
    I think it's totally reasonable to argue that there's more value in interesting and informed debate than there is in attacking trans people (I accept that's not what you were doing in this case, of course).
- beklinos 3y ago
  [flagged]
red-iron-pine 3y ago
> You will not get an interesting conversation on these topics on an American discussion board. These topics are a minefield. That's the point. Create a chilling effect to stifle discussion. Make it easy to draw sides and rally a demographic. Force opposition to take increasingly wild, extreme positions, then use those as a way to force your side to get even more extreme. Now you have 20-305 of the population who are rabid about issue X, and any real discussion about it is dead. Makes it real easy to sidestep other discussions, like how broken housing or minimum wages are. Nor is this a new thing, by a long shot; was an explicit tactic of the Soviet Union, and has been adopted by plenty of others, notably the US Right-wing.

DeathArrow 3y ago

> You will not get an interesting conversation on these topics on an American discussion board. These topics are a minefield. That's a problem. Why have people become so afraid to speak their minds? We live in a democracy or not?

Moissanite 3y ago
> We live in a democracy or not? Not really, no. Setting aside pedantry about the US being a republic and not a pure democracy, the fact is that wealthy elites decide election outcomes now. You ended up with Trump because elites in Russia wanted him elected more than elites in the US wanted Clinton. You got rid of him because elites in the US had woken up to the fact that they weren't the only player in that game anymore. Culture wars are a proxy battlefield in much the same way that Ukraine is.
- DeathArrow 3y ago
  By we, I didn't specify US citizens, but the collective western world. The situation isn't much different in EU. Sadly, we can't wait for the train to stop at next station and get out, because it's the only train we have.
- kome 3y ago
  > "You ended up with Trump because elites in Russia wanted him elected more than elites in the US wanted Clinton" This is so detached from reality, that is not even trying to understand why trump happened and why it may happens again.
  - Moissanite 3y ago
    I should really have said "elites, including those in antagonistic countries like Russia". My main point was more about the elites than where they are from.
  - Moissanite 3y ago
    Do you believe the appeal of Trump to disaffected Americans would be enough to win him the election, if big business (Koch et al) turned against the Republican party? Genuine question, because I feel like that is where the lever really is.
    - woooooo 3y ago
      Very different assertion. OP was saying Russian elites installed Trump and us Americans were helpless victims.
      - Moissanite 3y ago
        I'm the OP - and it's more complicated than that. Foreign powers fermented the discord in American society (which was already there for sure, but could have been much less toxic without external influence), hence describing it as a proxy war and not a foreign-backed coup.
        woooooo 3y ago
        The presidential campaigns had a billion dollars apiece, plus more from SuperPACs. Blaming the Russians for the outcome is just evading responsibility.
        selimthegrim 3y ago
        Fomented or fermented?
        Moissanite 3y ago
        Yes!
- stephen_g 3y ago
  Any effect that Russia could have possibly had has been massively and wildly exaggerated. If anything, that election showed that elites don't decide the outcomes. Clinton did appeal to a lot of 'elites' but not to many rank and file Democrat voters, large numbers of whom didn't turn up and vote. Trump, on the other hand, didn't appeal to most 'elites', but did appeal to a lot of rank and file Republican voters, who did turn up and vote. That more than explains Trump's win without having to resort to foreign boogeymen (for which the majority of the evidence never solidified beyond being just hearsay) to explain the loss of an uninspiring candidate.
- red-iron-pine 3y ago
  The Russians have an advanced, complex, and deep system of influence and espionage, but they're not the only players in this game. China, Israel, the Saudis, even allies like France, all push on US politics. Some of them, like Israel and China, push pretty hard, albeit with different goals. Also worth noting that in many cases they're just co-opting the system set up by US powerbrokers, e.g. Tucker Carlson of Fox News talking about how great Putin is.
  - DeathArrow 3y ago
    Giving the fact that US spies and tries to blackmail all its allies, it's hard to blame anyone for spying on US, is it?
- yamtaddle 3y ago
  > Setting aside pedantry about the US being a republic and not a pure democracy, Actually political scientists routinely refer to the US as a democracy. You're splitting a hair that experts do not. The word "democracy" does not only mean direct democracy. Mentioning this non-issue at all is a signal, but maybe not the one you hoped for.
  - Moissanite 3y ago
    I actually thought of this because of a line in The West Wing where the President is making a point about representation, then went off on a googling exploration to understand a bit whether it is a meaningful distinction - most of what I read seemed to reinforce the notion that the difference is important. In day-to-day life it certainly doesn't matter - but when you are attempting to discuss the nature of that political system itself, I don't think it is at all unreasonable to call out the distinction and decide whether to discuss it further. No need for snide jabs.
csa 3y ago
> Why have people become so afraid to speak their minds? A sufficiently large group of people have realized that they can function legally as a social lynch mob. A person can stand by their ideals all they want, but if their livelihood and/or social standing have been taken from them, then expressing those ideals doesn’t serve them very well. Many people just find it easier not to engage. History will not reflect kindly on these groups — they will be mocked (“crazy things people actually believed in the 2020s!”). > We live in a democracy or not? Regarding democracy, the most vocal zealots on both extremes of the political spectrum support decidedly undemocratic positions.
- DeathArrow 3y ago
  So people like to speak about freedom but are afraid of actually living in freedom?
  - seb1204 3y ago
    In my opinion many want democracy but few only exercise their democratic duty (vote) and fewer are active beyond that. Couch potatoes and complacent consumers will get ruled by dictators in the long run.
    - oneeyedpigeon 3y ago
      I don't see any contradiction between wanting to live in a democracy and taking an active part in it. In fact, quite the opposite — I think there's something truly anti-democratic about places like Australia where voting is compulsory. In my ideal world, fewer people would vote — everyone would still, of course, have the right to, just fewer would choose to.
    - kbelder 3y ago
      Well, about 65% vote. So far from all, but most do.
  - csa 3y ago
    > So people like to speak about freedom but are afraid of actually living in freedom? Many/most of the folks I know who speak out loudest about “freedom” are also the most willing to restrict it… for others. What’s the saying… freedom for me but not for thee? Before I come across as overly cynical, let me just add that most Americans I’m around have a very laissez faire attitude about most things. They are just very quiet about it, living their lives peacefully. I’m a believer in the very moderate silent majority in the US. It’s just hard to notice that it exists when pretty much all mainstream media and social media are designed to favor the promotion of extremist stances.
ben_w 3y ago
> That's a problem. Why have people become so afraid to speak their minds? We live in a democracy or not? Always was, IMO what you're experiencing with this is just the Overton window shifting around you. Goes both ways: People hardly ever discussed trans topics when I was a teenager and I don't know if that was a taboo or merely lack of awareness, but I do know that lesbian gay and bisexual topics were tabooed.
detuur 3y ago
Do _you_ want to be on the side that argues that our modern interpretations of age of consent may be a fad? Or that one day science may provide incontrovertible evidence that racism is entirely rational and appropriate? Arguing these is pointless, because they are violate dogmas that underpin our modern ideology. They are not up for argument. If another ideology suggests that racism is actually a-ok, then we consider it clearly flawed, because dogmatically, ideologies that come to that conclusion must be flawed. And not just flawed, because these fundamental dogmas are what shapes our notions of "good" and "evil". Not adhering to these dogmas makes you evil. I must add, this is not a fallacy of some sort. If I were thrown into another society where everyone approves of racism, I am still attached to my personal dogmas. I would consider such a society unjust and warped. As a matter of fact, there's plenty of personal dogmas our current society violates, and I consider our current society and its ideology unjust and flawed. Which raises another point, which is that our society does not have a monolithical ideology. It has an emergent ideology that arises from common agreement, but there's plenty of people in our society these days who disagree with several of the dogmas. And that's what makes them "bad" or "evil". The only way to argue someone out of a personal dogma is to convince them that whatever your dogmas are is reflective of absolute good, evil, and/or truth. This is the subject of what is likely one of the oldest philosophical debates and has spawned several religions.
- WastingMyTime89 3y ago
  > Do _you_ want to be on the side that argues that This is not a two sided discussion where each camps agree in block with a set list of propositions. It's also not manichean with things being either completely true or false, right or wrong or, good or evil. You are not either for or against. If you believe that, you are the problem. We should be able to explore these subjects in their full complexity with the disagreement that entails. It's not even possible anymore in academia.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
  > If another ideology suggests that racism is actually a-ok We almost universally agree that racism is not ok but what's racism? Some think affirmative action is racist.
- 3y ago
JKCalhoun 3y ago
> Why have people become so afraid to speak their minds? Maybe this is an unpopular opinion, but I put the blame on those afraid to speak their minds. I try always to speak my mind — whether it flies in the face of popular opinion or no. I take the downvotes — I sort of like that they have me pause and reconsider my opinion. But if in the end I feel I am still justified the downvotes just become a kind of war-wound or something that I take some small amount of pride in. I'm not sure why everyone doesn't do the same.
- bombcar 3y ago
  Because for vast swaths of the population, even the tiniest risk that they could lose their job/livelyhood isn't worth it, and especially not worth it online.
  - DeathArrow 3y ago
    But living a life in fear, distrust and disgust is worth it? Is not worth fighting for an alternative?
    - bombcar 3y ago
      The vast majority just live a life offline.
- DeathArrow 3y ago
  Downwoting me on HN or any online forum, doesn't affect me a bit. I can stand the enemies even if they outnumber me by 100x. Occasionally I can outsmart them, so I can take a point. But denying me the possibility to provide food for my two kids, my wife and me, is another thing. And there are just two possible responses: either I won't talk anything meaningful to strangers, or, having calculated my chances, I would aggressively defend my right and my children's rights to speak our minds. And by aggressively I mean very, as in revolutionary very. You threaten my very existence, and then all bets are loose and anything that will let me and my people win over you is permitted.

bell-cot 3y ago

> You will not get an interesting conversation on these topics on an American discussion board. These topics are a minefield. I hope you're wrong, but... It would be lovely to see some actual historical perspective on America's periodic obsessions. Post-9/11 anti-terrorism and airport security theater are still here. The Vietnam-era obsession of the left with being anti-war (while the right was still pro-war and anti-communist) has almost reversed. We had McCarthyism in the 1950's. Etc. The Great Awakenings ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Awakening https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Awakening ) should probably be thrown into the list. And the Salem Witch Trials ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_witch_trials#Political_context https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_witch_trials#Political_c... ). And...

formerly_proven 3y ago

And maybe someday we'll have a discussion about the forced superiority complex with which euros insert themselves into online conversations.

dang 3y ago
Slurs and swipes are not ok on HN and will get you banned here. Can you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules? We'd appreciate it.
DeathArrow 3y ago
Stating the obvious like GP did doesn't mean superiority or superiority complex. Your comment on the other part...

oneeyedpigeon 3y ago

> In some circles, you will be quartered for daring to express [view] where [view] exists at any point on the political spectrum. > that there exists differences between men and women which might not be socially constructed It depends on the context for me. If you're stating that point to make an interesting and insightful comment, all well and good. If you're just using it to bash trans people, it's less valuable IMO.

WastingMyTime89 3y ago
I have no opinion whatsoever regarding transpeople outside of everyone should be able to do whatever they want with themselves but I'm amused that you could basically rephrase your sentence like that: > If you're stating that point to [say something I agree with], all well and good. If you're just using it to [say something I disagree with], it's less valuable IMO
- oneeyedpigeon 3y ago
  I think it's totally reasonable to argue that there's more value in interesting and informed debate than there is in attacking trans people (I accept that's not what you were doing in this case, of course).
beklinos 3y ago
[flagged]

red-iron-pine 3y ago

> You will not get an interesting conversation on these topics on an American discussion board. These topics are a minefield. That's the point. Create a chilling effect to stifle discussion. Make it easy to draw sides and rally a demographic. Force opposition to take increasingly wild, extreme positions, then use those as a way to force your side to get even more extreme. Now you have 20-305 of the population who are rabid about issue X, and any real discussion about it is dead. Makes it real easy to sidestep other discussions, like how broken housing or minimum wages are. Nor is this a new thing, by a long shot; was an explicit tactic of the Soviet Union, and has been adopted by plenty of others, notably the US Right-wing.