7 ms·

There's a difference between encouraging good behavior and loudly asserting your moral superiority.

zuminator 2y ago
Fair response. But in this case the guy is just rambling on his personal blog. It's not like he's going on Twitter/X and hectoring people. And "wokeism" aside, he gives a good obscure-history lesson as to why the phrase "cargo cult" doesn't actually mean what most of us think it does. That itself made it worth a read for me.
- motorest 2y ago
  > Fair response. But in this case the guy is just rambling on his personal blog. It's not like he's going on Twitter/X and hectoring people. He's skipping Twitter and jumped straight to hectoring people, going to the extent of even casting blanket criticism on the points being made by anyone using the metaphor.
  - KaiserPro 2y ago
    Did the author force you to read this? Did the author make this article compulsory? Did the author force Hacker News to put this on the front page? Did the author threaten to sack you if you didn't read, understand and comply with the article? Freedom of speech means that you will see things that you disagree with. But to conflate seeing an article in a _pull_ model, ie a title that you have to click on as hectoring people seems a bit, well far. Its not like its a twitter pile on, this seems like a well reasoned, researched article with sited sources. Even if you don't agree with the outcomes.
- smsm42 2y ago
  > It's not like he's going on Twitter/X and hectoring people. He personally may not. We do know though there are a lot of people very eager to wage such campaigns, and we know speech-policing campaigns have very real and very far reaching consequences sometimes. So the sensitivity to such things is heightened right now. And I am sure that if the "rambling on his personal blog" contained some things that are considered culturally unacceptable (something like Damore memo, for example), there would be a lot of people who would call not only for widespread discussion but for suppression and deplatforming of the person expressing it. I think this is extremely wrong approach, regardless of the content, but I think also this may be the reason why discussing this seriously is an appropriate reaction. To be clear, I do not call (and I am extremely opposed to) attacking the person writing it in any way. But I think it deserves the pushback - in the form of discussion and critique - that it is getting. Language policing and censorship is very real, very dangerous and should be discussed and pushed back against. > he gives a good obscure-history lesson as to why the phrase "cargo cult" doesn't actually mean what most of us think it does. I am not sure that's actually true. Most of us probably thinks cargo cult is a religions practice somewhere in the Pacific that mimics external looks of the logistical operations performed by Westerners on their islands to expect the results of coming of goods that the Westerners brought in (cargo), without understanding what caused the actual logistic processes to happen and how they work, just by magic means. Most of us would probably have the specific details wrong, but that's true for almost every area. The article provided very good plenty of details, very interesting - but with all the "akshually"-ing there, I don't think it has proven the main premise wrong. The information itself is very much appreciated, but I don't think the conclusion - which seems to be "you are all wrong and should stop using this term" - is warranted.
prmoustache 2y ago
So you basically prefer instead the current trend of lowering the level of humanity to its bare minimum. You might find them annoying, but these people "yelling at clouds" in their personal blogs are actually refreshing when all you see around are people leaning towards repeating the darkest part of our collective history.
- scoutt 2y ago
  On the other side, being told what is "bad", what is "good", "right" and wrong", what is "dark" and what is "bright", what I should do and think and why I don't have such good morals, in the past 15 years, was so exhausting...
  - prmoustache 2y ago
    People have been doing that since the dawn of humanity.
  - Lendal 2y ago
    Don't worry about it. It's an opinion. Agree or disagree with it. But to feel morally inferior because of someone else's opinion isn't an argument. It's revealing that you have issues with self esteem. If you want to put forth an argument about why he's wrong, or crossing a line, or making an unrealistic proposition that everyone everywhere should stop using a word or phrase, that's absolutely a valid response. But people making the claim of "virtue signalling" are not making an argument. They're making a baseless ad hominem attack.
    - scoutt 2y ago
      I did ctrl+f searching for "opinion", "I believe", "I think", etc. I can't find any reference to "opinions". I read the post as the author decribing facts and imparting instructions of what we should do ("It's time to do X", "The cargo cult metaphor should be avoided") because they believe their knowledge/opinions/morals/beliefs are better than mine, and somehow they can dictate what to do; how should I feel, what should I think. Otherwise I am oppressing, contributing to oppress, perpetuating something, [insert other accusations]. As in the past 15 years. It's enough already. The real question is why the author is doing this? Is it ego? Money? Clicks? Pure and true altruism? And here "virtue signalling" comes as a possible valid answer too.
Lendal 2y ago
If someone else's opinion makes you feel morally inferior, that's your problem. And a problem best kept to oneself I would think. Not aired out in public like dirty laundry.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- smsm42 2y ago
  There's a difference between your proclaiming "I am so much better than you!" and me actually feeling worse. If you baselessly proclaim that, I would not feel morally worse, I will feel annoyed. And behavior that annoys people around you is anti-social and must be publicly shamed so that there would be less of it and people would have better qualify of life.

Fair response. But in this case the guy is just rambling on his personal blog. It's not like he's going on Twitter/X and hectoring people. And "wokeism" aside, he gives a good obscure-history lesson as to why the phrase "cargo cult" doesn't actually mean what most of us think it does. That itself made it worth a read for me.

motorest 2y ago
> Fair response. But in this case the guy is just rambling on his personal blog. It's not like he's going on Twitter/X and hectoring people. He's skipping Twitter and jumped straight to hectoring people, going to the extent of even casting blanket criticism on the points being made by anyone using the metaphor.
- KaiserPro 2y ago
  Did the author force you to read this? Did the author make this article compulsory? Did the author force Hacker News to put this on the front page? Did the author threaten to sack you if you didn't read, understand and comply with the article? Freedom of speech means that you will see things that you disagree with. But to conflate seeing an article in a _pull_ model, ie a title that you have to click on as hectoring people seems a bit, well far. Its not like its a twitter pile on, this seems like a well reasoned, researched article with sited sources. Even if you don't agree with the outcomes.
smsm42 2y ago
> It's not like he's going on Twitter/X and hectoring people. He personally may not. We do know though there are a lot of people very eager to wage such campaigns, and we know speech-policing campaigns have very real and very far reaching consequences sometimes. So the sensitivity to such things is heightened right now. And I am sure that if the "rambling on his personal blog" contained some things that are considered culturally unacceptable (something like Damore memo, for example), there would be a lot of people who would call not only for widespread discussion but for suppression and deplatforming of the person expressing it. I think this is extremely wrong approach, regardless of the content, but I think also this may be the reason why discussing this seriously is an appropriate reaction. To be clear, I do not call (and I am extremely opposed to) attacking the person writing it in any way. But I think it deserves the pushback - in the form of discussion and critique - that it is getting. Language policing and censorship is very real, very dangerous and should be discussed and pushed back against. > he gives a good obscure-history lesson as to why the phrase "cargo cult" doesn't actually mean what most of us think it does. I am not sure that's actually true. Most of us probably thinks cargo cult is a religions practice somewhere in the Pacific that mimics external looks of the logistical operations performed by Westerners on their islands to expect the results of coming of goods that the Westerners brought in (cargo), without understanding what caused the actual logistic processes to happen and how they work, just by magic means. Most of us would probably have the specific details wrong, but that's true for almost every area. The article provided very good plenty of details, very interesting - but with all the "akshually"-ing there, I don't think it has proven the main premise wrong. The information itself is very much appreciated, but I don't think the conclusion - which seems to be "you are all wrong and should stop using this term" - is warranted.

prmoustache 2y ago

So you basically prefer instead the current trend of lowering the level of humanity to its bare minimum. You might find them annoying, but these people "yelling at clouds" in their personal blogs are actually refreshing when all you see around are people leaning towards repeating the darkest part of our collective history.

scoutt 2y ago
On the other side, being told what is "bad", what is "good", "right" and wrong", what is "dark" and what is "bright", what I should do and think and why I don't have such good morals, in the past 15 years, was so exhausting...
- prmoustache 2y ago
  People have been doing that since the dawn of humanity.
- Lendal 2y ago
  Don't worry about it. It's an opinion. Agree or disagree with it. But to feel morally inferior because of someone else's opinion isn't an argument. It's revealing that you have issues with self esteem. If you want to put forth an argument about why he's wrong, or crossing a line, or making an unrealistic proposition that everyone everywhere should stop using a word or phrase, that's absolutely a valid response. But people making the claim of "virtue signalling" are not making an argument. They're making a baseless ad hominem attack.
  - scoutt 2y ago
    I did ctrl+f searching for "opinion", "I believe", "I think", etc. I can't find any reference to "opinions". I read the post as the author decribing facts and imparting instructions of what we should do ("It's time to do X", "The cargo cult metaphor should be avoided") because they believe their knowledge/opinions/morals/beliefs are better than mine, and somehow they can dictate what to do; how should I feel, what should I think. Otherwise I am oppressing, contributing to oppress, perpetuating something, [insert other accusations]. As in the past 15 years. It's enough already. The real question is why the author is doing this? Is it ego? Money? Clicks? Pure and true altruism? And here "virtue signalling" comes as a possible valid answer too.

Lendal 2y ago

If someone else's opinion makes you feel morally inferior, that's your problem. And a problem best kept to oneself I would think. Not aired out in public like dirty laundry.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
smsm42 2y ago
There's a difference between your proclaiming "I am so much better than you!" and me actually feeling worse. If you baselessly proclaim that, I would not feel morally worse, I will feel annoyed. And behavior that annoys people around you is anti-social and must be publicly shamed so that there would be less of it and people would have better qualify of life.