5 ms·

All action is "subjective and subject to biases that change over time". This would then imply I could never take any action, because it's just subjective and bi

All action is "subjective and subject to biases that change over time". This would then imply I could never take any action, because it's just subjective and biased. Maybe that's an exaggeration of your position, but you do seem to be suggesting inaction or the impossibility of judgement. I reject this position 100%. I would suggest that judgement is a critical part of our civilization, and it's judgement that says those bits of obscene graffiti in Pompeii that makes it so. Or else they could say "well, we can't claim ancient cave art is priceless, because we're biased and our biases will change over time. Maybe in a thousand years we'll discover that ancient cave art is worthless, so we'll do nothing". In fact you have judged my opinions and shared your judgement with me. Good job! Your characterization of regimes as autocratic is judgmental, biased and will change over time. But right now that's your judgement and I applaud it, even if I disagree. Gosh, book burning. Not backing up a romance novel or cookbook is definitely analogous to book burning, but I'll play along. It was a symbolic act to show a rejection of ideas, not an attempt to eradicate the books, much in the same way Gandhi encouraged the burning of foreign made clothing and products. He wasn't going to rid the world of British cloth nor were the Germans going to rid the world of non-German ideas. So yeah, when all the badly written cook books, romance novels, and children's books are in a huge bonfire, you can blame me, personally.

globnomulous 2y ago
> All action is "subjective and subject to biases that change over time". This is poppycock. Backing up all books -- the very action discussed by the person you're answering -- is by definition neither subjective nor subject to biases. > This would then imply I could never take any action, because it's just subjective and biased. And even if the first quoted claim were true, this, too, clearly isn't. Nowhere does the comment you're answering imply that the bias or subjective rationale of an action should, ipso facto, discourage a person from taking it. Your comment is replete with similar reasoning, so warped that it's difficult to characterize as anything other than in bad faith. Indeed, this is the snottiest, rudest, least constructive comment I've seen on HN in quite some time -- excepting a couple of my snotty remarks on language or the quality of someone's writing. I have no idea what response you expect, but the only one you deserve, I think, is one that just points out your dismissiveness, sarcasm, and breathtaking contempt. What an awful way to move through the world, let alone through HN.
- bqmjjx0kac 2y ago
  I wouldn't be surprised if they're an LLM-powered bot.
  - Over2Chars 2y ago
    This seems to be the new hotness is generic replies. "No, I think you're an LLM-powered bot! So there!"
- jillesvangurp 2y ago
  Thanks for this. I wasn't going to feed the trolls; but you are not wrong > this is the snottiest, rudest, least constructive comment I've seen on HN in quite some time I wish ;-). I see a lot worse here regularly. But it's certainly not nice behavior. Luckily, I have a thick skin.
  - Over2Chars 2y ago
    Anyone who takes a position you don't like is, presumably, a troll. Well, it takes one to know one. So there.
- flir 2y ago
  > least constructive comment I've seen on HN in quite some time But we should still archive it. Some day it might be useful to someone ;)
  - jillesvangurp 2y ago
    Exactly :-)
  - Over2Chars 2y ago
    LOl, at least someone has a sense of humour here :-)
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
wizzwizz4 2y ago
I don't think you're doing it on purpose, but this is Holocaust denial. The Nazis did destroy all extant copies of several works – for example, research of the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft. (Edit: Some Judaica were sent to Prague instead of being destroyed – though apparently Hitler's planned Judaism Museum is an urban myth.) They absolutely were trying to utterly destroy – not just symbolically reject – vast swathes of culture. Please don't make stuff up about the Holocaust. It's the sort of mistake you shouldn't make even once.
- Over2Chars 2y ago
  Hmm... Godwin's law much? My argument is that the symbolic rejection, not the practical destruction of books, was important. Also, I pointed out through a subtle (too subtle for you so I'll spell it out: this is a wholly irrelevant argument - arguing that books don't deserve to be backed up has nothing to do with book burning) - so I played along - as I noted. Get it? The practical destruction of all books considered non-German, or Gandhi's destruction of all British fabrics - might have been a desire, but there's no need to publicly burn books to destroy them. They can be efficiently destroyed privately. The Nazi's could have destroyed all the books they liked in some private little place. Ergo, my argument stands! PUBLIC book burning is about PUBLIC rejection of something (non-German elements, or Foreign made goods, etc) and may in fact be less efficient than simply quietly and privately putting them in a landfill which no one will see. Get it? I'm not making stuff up about World War Two, I'm arguing about a ridiculous analogy to not backing up romance novels being akin to book burning. Apparently, not wanting to back up romance novels and cookbooks makes one a holocaust denier. Go Hacker News. Mr. Godwin? Are you around?
  - wizzwizz4 2y ago
    The Nazis did destroy (or order destroyed) books quietly and privately, but large collections are easier to destroy in place. The more famous Nazi book burnings occurred prior to World War Two. When I said "that's Holocaust denial", I wasn't saying "you're a Nazi", but pointing out an accidental mistake. If I thought it were deliberate, I wouldn't have said anything. Your argument about the symbolic meaning of public book burnings is irrelevant (and I'm not sure why you brought it up), but there very much is a parallel between calling for the destruction-by-bitrot of books, and calling for the destruction-by-fire of books. (Again, I am not calling you a Nazi.)

globnomulous 2y ago

> All action is "subjective and subject to biases that change over time". This is poppycock. Backing up all books -- the very action discussed by the person you're answering -- is by definition neither subjective nor subject to biases. > This would then imply I could never take any action, because it's just subjective and biased. And even if the first quoted claim were true, this, too, clearly isn't. Nowhere does the comment you're answering imply that the bias or subjective rationale of an action should, ipso facto, discourage a person from taking it. Your comment is replete with similar reasoning, so warped that it's difficult to characterize as anything other than in bad faith. Indeed, this is the snottiest, rudest, least constructive comment I've seen on HN in quite some time -- excepting a couple of my snotty remarks on language or the quality of someone's writing. I have no idea what response you expect, but the only one you deserve, I think, is one that just points out your dismissiveness, sarcasm, and breathtaking contempt. What an awful way to move through the world, let alone through HN.

bqmjjx0kac 2y ago
I wouldn't be surprised if they're an LLM-powered bot.
- Over2Chars 2y ago
  This seems to be the new hotness is generic replies. "No, I think you're an LLM-powered bot! So there!"
jillesvangurp 2y ago
Thanks for this. I wasn't going to feed the trolls; but you are not wrong > this is the snottiest, rudest, least constructive comment I've seen on HN in quite some time I wish ;-). I see a lot worse here regularly. But it's certainly not nice behavior. Luckily, I have a thick skin.
- Over2Chars 2y ago
  Anyone who takes a position you don't like is, presumably, a troll. Well, it takes one to know one. So there.
flir 2y ago
> least constructive comment I've seen on HN in quite some time But we should still archive it. Some day it might be useful to someone ;)
- jillesvangurp 2y ago
  Exactly :-)
- Over2Chars 2y ago
  LOl, at least someone has a sense of humour here :-)
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]

wizzwizz4 2y ago

I don't think you're doing it on purpose, but this is Holocaust denial. The Nazis did destroy all extant copies of several works – for example, research of the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft. (Edit: Some Judaica were sent to Prague instead of being destroyed – though apparently Hitler's planned Judaism Museum is an urban myth.) They absolutely were trying to utterly destroy – not just symbolically reject – vast swathes of culture. Please don't make stuff up about the Holocaust. It's the sort of mistake you shouldn't make even once.

Over2Chars 2y ago
Hmm... Godwin's law much? My argument is that the symbolic rejection, not the practical destruction of books, was important. Also, I pointed out through a subtle (too subtle for you so I'll spell it out: this is a wholly irrelevant argument - arguing that books don't deserve to be backed up has nothing to do with book burning) - so I played along - as I noted. Get it? The practical destruction of all books considered non-German, or Gandhi's destruction of all British fabrics - might have been a desire, but there's no need to publicly burn books to destroy them. They can be efficiently destroyed privately. The Nazi's could have destroyed all the books they liked in some private little place. Ergo, my argument stands! PUBLIC book burning is about PUBLIC rejection of something (non-German elements, or Foreign made goods, etc) and may in fact be less efficient than simply quietly and privately putting them in a landfill which no one will see. Get it? I'm not making stuff up about World War Two, I'm arguing about a ridiculous analogy to not backing up romance novels being akin to book burning. Apparently, not wanting to back up romance novels and cookbooks makes one a holocaust denier. Go Hacker News. Mr. Godwin? Are you around?
- wizzwizz4 2y ago
  The Nazis did destroy (or order destroyed) books quietly and privately, but large collections are easier to destroy in place. The more famous Nazi book burnings occurred prior to World War Two. When I said "that's Holocaust denial", I wasn't saying "you're a Nazi", but pointing out an accidental mistake. If I thought it were deliberate, I wouldn't have said anything. Your argument about the symbolic meaning of public book burnings is irrelevant (and I'm not sure why you brought it up), but there very much is a parallel between calling for the destruction-by-bitrot of books, and calling for the destruction-by-fire of books. (Again, I am not calling you a Nazi.)