8 ms·
An important takeaway is to consider what's considered forbidden to discuss in supposedly enlightened 2023. The sad fact is that there are many more such topics
by RagnarD 3y ago
An important takeaway is to consider what's considered forbidden to discuss in supposedly enlightened 2023. The sad fact is that there are many more such topics now than in 1945 - but for the same reasons. These are topics which threaten a certain politically driven contingent, and this is enforced by the loyal minions of that contingent, including many so lacking in introspection that they accept as axioms, false and destructive ideas which should be honestly challenged.
- Semaphor 3y agoLike?
- Brotkrumen 3y agoWhat would those topics be? I guess they are suppressed quite well, since none come to mind.
- ozr 3y ago"I dare you to say forbidden things publicly as we comment on an article discussing the negative impacts of doing so"
- Brotkrumen 3y agoAre we pretending now, that even mentioning these "forbidden topics" will get you banned? Here, I'll mention some for you: eugenics, Holocaust, incest. So please, if I don't get censored for these, please tell me what these secret topics hidden from me are!
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- wrp 3y agoTaking this as a serious question, it wouldn't be hard to make a list of topics that get instant flagging on HN. I suppose the reason why people don't bother is they expect any attempt to explain would also be downvoted to oblivion.
- CoastalCoder 3y agoI'm not sure it's that cut and dry. But I agree there are some viewpoints more likely to be downvoted than others. I strongly disagree with Graham's view that disagreement is a good reason for downvoting.
- Glyptodon 3y agoA lot of discourse about China on HN seems to get pulled into perpetual "but bad things have happened in the US too" whataboutism and a sort of mild muffling. Not to mention the weird stuff that happens with topics like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36946171 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36946171.
- Brotkrumen 3y agoThe discourse exists though, right? Here and elsewhere. Censorship isn't pushback, bad arguments aren't either
- Glyptodon 3y agoI mean the piece isn't really about traditional censorship as such, but social forces working against the expression of particular topics and acting to reduce their visibility.
- Brotkrumen 3y agoI'm reading it as social forces making certain topics unpublishable. In his words >facts which the Soviet government would prefer to keep hidden, is next door to unprintable. All topics mentioned so far as "censored" have enjoyed enough publication and even being successful political platforms. What people here mistake as censorship is usually regurgitated bad arguments being unpopular
- velhartice 3y agoIvermectin is a good start.
- bheadmaster 3y agoThe whole Covid fiasco can't really be discussed on HN. If you try, you either get flagged to death or told to "get over it".
- velhartice 3y agoBingo.
- quickthrower2 3y agoThe real question is not so much "can I do it on HN or other niche forum X" but "can I do it anywhere where people with polar opinions can have a reasonable debate", and even more interesting "can I say this in public, where my face is in punching distance" and then the ultimate "can I say this in an election campaign" (at which point even basic facts are off limits).
- bheadmaster 3y agoWhy is that the real question? Are you saying that if enough people get angry at your words, your freedom of speech doesn't matter anymore?
- quickthrower2 3y agoIndividual forums can decide what is on/off topic. I can see why a forum would want to control what topics are on and off topic. Obviously you can say anything you like on unmoderated places like 4chan, but what does that prove?
- bheadmaster 3y agoThis whole thread is beyond the point, since the original commenter asked which are the topics that you can't discuss on HN. Your replies only confirm that Covid is indeed a topic that you can't discuss on HN. --- I'll reply for completeness anyway: > I can see why a forum would want to control what topics are on and off topic. There's a difference between banning flamewars and banning any kind of discussion. I am talking about the latter, not the former, which did indeed happen during Covid. > Obviously you can say anything you like on unmoderated places like 4chan, but what does that prove? Indeed, 4chan was the place where you could see discussion about the Covid policies and the media claims, from masks to lockdowns and mandatory vaccines - in fact, it was the one of the only places you could talk about it. Many of the things discussed there turned out to be true.
- quickthrower2 3y agoI could mention 100 I reckon, but this comment would be cancelled so hard it would pop out the other side of the server :-). Which is the point.
- Brotkrumen 3y agoI've mentioned 3. I've lost 2 popularity points so far. Am I being censored?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- unethical_ban 3y agoQuestion the legitimacy of gender fluidity. Wonder aloud whether some traditional social norms have societal value, even if the religious rationales are absurd. Wonder aloud if violence (perhaps only against property) will be required to bring about radical political and economic change.
- Brotkrumen 3y agoI've seen those posts here, I've read the arguments in the comments. What is censored then? Unpopularity or pushback isn't censorship
- unethical_ban 3y agoSpeaking for myself, I will say HN is more tolerant of good faith debate on the subjects than places like reddit. But I mean the real world. Despite being liberal and tolerant, I feel I have to be extremely cautious who I speak to about any doubt around certain social movements. To express reservation in some circles would not being debate, but only accusations of bigotry followed by public shaming.
- veave 3y agoTransexuals are not women, abortion is murder, the US and/or Ukraine provoked the war, average IQ of different races and how it explains their behaviour. There you have four things that will earn you an instant flag (perhaps not in this thread for obvious reasons)
- maxbond 3y agoAnd yet I still see them debated regularly. They're not forbidden, they're unpopular. A consequence of having a system of voting and flagging is that you won't always agree with the way people vote and flag. > Transexuals are not women As an aside, I've noticed a pattern that people fret endlessly over trans women and don't really take notice of trans men. I don't know why that is, but there must be a reason why it's so remarkably consistent.
- assbuttbuttass 3y agoMisogyny
- veave 3y agoA consequence of having a system of flagging is that dang can avoid having to do any work by having users remove other users' comments, keeping the site in one side of the political spectrum. (Just to be clear, I don't think he particularly cares which side wins, as long as it allows him to avoid any responsibility)
- maxbond 3y agoI propose as an experiment, you go make an offensive left-wing comment on a relevant thread (maybe "ACAB" or "eat the rich"), and see if it gets flagged and downvoted. I read a bunch of right-wing comments on HN (including ones making good arguments), the reports of left bias on HN are greatly overstated.
- defrost 3y agoThey're effectively contentless comments of no merit. Any slogan yelling should get downvoted by HN standards regardless of partisan bias. An Eat the Rich comment that includes a quality recipe, however, should be rewarded with tolerance if not upvotes.
- parker_mountain 3y ago[flagged]
- photonerd 3y ago[flagged]
- wrp 3y agoI suppose parent is mainly thinking of issues grouped under the term "culture wars". Another, more urgent issue, is indicated by this quote in TFA: And throughout five years of war, during two or three of which we were fighting for national survival, countless books, pamphlets and articles advocating a compromise peace have been published without interference. More, they have been published without exciting much disapproval. So long as the prestige of the USSR is not involved, the principle of free speech has been reasonably well upheld.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- vasco 3y ago> including many so lacking in introspection that they accept as axioms, false and destructive ideas which should be honestly challenged Despite the existence of people like this, it's generally not a good stance to consider those who disagree with you as lacking introspection. It's just a crutch to further validate your beliefs without any effort. How much more developed would your thoughts be if you pretend that every opinion you encounter was thought through, and included as much life experiences and research as your own opinions do?
- bheadmaster 3y agoIt is also naive to assume that everyone has good reasons to believe what they believe, when we live in the world where astrology is popular, and people believe things because they "feel deep inside that it's true!".
- vasco 3y agoI agree with you, here's an expanded version of the buckets I think exist: 1. I'm genuine but I haven't thought this through 2. I'm genuine and I have thought this through (regardless if I'm right or wrong) 3. I'm adversarial and weaponise my opinion in order to advance some other agenda or push the overton window My proposition is that if you assume everyone is in bucket 1, you never rethink your opinions and just think "poorly" of others which doesn't allow you to advance your thinking as fast as if you classify them as bucket 2. For people in bucket 3, you just have to trust that you'll spot a bad actor from their actions and inconsistent rhetoric over time so that you're not fooled over the long run. But similarly to people that choose to never find love for fear of having their heart broken, I wouldn't want to assume everyone is in bucket 3 because that's a shitty life to live.
- osivertsson 3y agoWhat current topics and ideas do you fear will be harmful to society in the long run then? What will the consequences be to individuals, communities, etc? This is HN, we can discuss all sorts of deep insights. For that discussion to be able to take place please give examples and explain what you see based on your unique experiences. That way you can win people over and slowly transform views of people, communities etc.
- bheadmaster 3y agoThe most harmful current idea is that there is such a thing as a "harmful idea that must be censored for the good of society". I think this is one place where tolerance paradox arises.
- manofmanysmiles 3y agoI agree wholeheartedly. The only remedy to bad information is more knowledge. With enough knowledge, all falsehoods fall away.
- manofmanysmiles 3y agoI don’t believe any ideas are harmful to “society” [1], but there are many that are “harmful” to the current paradigm of power. Some that come to mind: 1) The illusion of authority. The idea that some people have the moral right to do violence to enforce arbitrary rules written on paper. 2) The root cause of suffering, which is a lack of true knowledge of self and the nature of reality. 3) The fiat money system, or the idea of money at all. 4) The inherent ability (and maybe desire) to do harm and commit violence to existing in every being. 5) The idea of self ownership, when it comes to choices such as what we consume, whether it be food, “drugs”, or media. 6) Anything deemed a “conspiracy theory”. 7) Objective morality and natural law. I could go on. All of these stem from a lack of knowledge of the self, morality, and the nature of consciousness and morality. Of course these can be discussed in small groups, but widespread discussion of these, by “public figures” or “the media” is all but completely lacking. Edit: I forgot to add a "citation" to my post. [1]: I always wonder what people mean when they say society. Do they mean the current structure and way of doing things? Do they mean all people?
- omscs99 3y agoTwo different types of forbidden, one is the top down state driven kind, the other is the puritan witch burning kind. They are not the same