4 ms·

HN seems loathe to have any meaningful discussion about or reflection on how and why notable SV figures seemed primed to embrace the Trump/MAGA right (see, for

by doom2 1y ago

HN seems loathe to have any meaningful discussion about or reflection on how and why notable SV figures seemed primed to embrace the Trump/MAGA right (see, for example, quote in OP from Chris Rufo). I don't think it was simply being repelled by the left, as Andreesson has stated before, but an earnest rightward turn. Also, after articles like these, will calls for "viewpoint diversity" finally apply to conservatives who chase out even the moderates from their spheres? After years of the left being accused of suppressing opposing views, I haven't seen quite the same backlash against conservatives building up ideologically homogenous spaces like the group chats in the article.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
ajross 1y ago
> I don't think it was simply being repelled by the left, as Andreesson has stated before, but an earnest rightward turn. The clear contention in the linked article is that it's neither. It's just plain old group think fed by an echo chamber. You take a genuine-but-isolated affront or conflict[1], tie it to one or two other less important side issues[2], and then just line everyone up on the "good" or "bad" side of a line. Before you know it our community is cheering the return of a regime that literally tried to stage a coup and making tortuous excuses for why we need to be deporting four year old citizens with cancer. It's 4chan. It's just 4chan all over again. [1] Ex: the anti-elite current within the lefty political sphere that has never really loved the idea of making common cause with SV billionaires. [2] Middle aged dudes, demographically, tend to be a little squicked out by trans rights and pronouns and LGBTQ+ issues, think paper straws are dumb as fuck, and really hated seeing stuff burned down in protets.
kenjackson 1y ago
> After years of the left being accused of suppressing opposing views, I haven't seen quite the same backlash against conservatives building up ideologically homogenous spaces like the group chats in the article. The fundamental difference is that conservative viewpoints support the majority (or plurality), whereas the liberal viewpoints support the minority view. Backlash against the majority view is much harder to come by. And being in the majority and supporting minority perspectives is more uncomfortable, and frankly much easier to opt-out of if there is sufficient discomfort.
- roguecoder 1y ago
  If that were true, Republicans would spend a lot less effort on voter suppression & wouldn't have needed to have the Supreme Court repeal the Voting Rights Act in order to win.
  - kenjackson 1y ago
    This is orthogonal to my point. Modern Republicans are populists who try to appeal to the majority constituency. But their policies are generally so bad (and mean-spirited) that they don't have broad appeal even amongst that group.
- dralley 1y ago
  > The fundamental difference is that conservative viewpoints support the majority (or plurality), whereas the liberal viewpoints support the minority view. Be specific and put up numbers. There is a wide, wide swath of issues where the "liberal" position is the majoritarian one.
  - kenjackson 1y ago
    Conservative positions are generally pro-hetero, white, and Christian. Also male, but that is the one where they're not the majority, but very close to 50/50. There are "liberal" positions that are popular, but generally the current big conservative pushes are against minority populations. E.g., DEI, trans, immigrants (from certain countries), etc...
    - int_19h 1y ago
      You present it as a dichotomy when that's not actually the case. I'm heterosexual and white, but I don't see how policies that e.g. allow gay people to marry - a stereotypically "liberal" position - harm me in any way. There are some things where it's a zero-sum game, such as affirmative action. And those do in fact tend to be less popular even among liberals (as evidenced by referendums on those topics in blue states). But that's a relatively small part of the overall liberal platform.
wat10000 1y ago
[flagged]
femiagbabiaka 1y ago
There was lots of resentment against unionization efforts from tech workers -- workers who were increasingly seen as ungrateful insurgents trying to mess up a good thing -- and tech oligarchs decided that everyone left of center was exactly like tech workers in Silicon Valley. For them, leftists are infected with a "mind virus", and needing some enlightened elites to save them from themselves. Of course there's no self-reflection about the mind virus that causes folks like Andreesen to use the philosophy of meth addicted neo-Nazis[1] as the ideological basis for their new political order. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Land https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Land
vuggamie 1y ago
Like all other forums, public and private, HN has an ideological filter. I'm as surprised as the next person that the HN ideological filter turned out not to be permissive enough to discuss the downfall of the free society that fostered its creation. The oligarchs will not lose their freedom or power and they won't fight (or even inconvenience themselves) to preserve yours. Next time you're reading a blog or a biography of a tech billionaire, remember that they got their wealth from wage theft and they will keep their power by destroying yours. The only law tech companies -- and the oligarchs that own and control them -- have to obey is allegiance to Trump. No other law will be enforced.
- chimeracoder 1y ago
  > Like all other forums, public and private, HN has an ideological filter. I'm as surprised as the next person that the HN ideological filter turned out not to be permissive enough to discuss the downfall of the free society that fostered its creation. Is it that surprising? As a longtime member, this seems perfectly consistent with the general bent of the website. Collectively, HN has long been extremely comfortable with authoritarianism and far right ideologies, as long as those opinions are expressed in a framing that conveys intellectualism and "civility". Those same expectations are weaponized to drive out dissenting voices, which creates a positive[0] feedback loop. Honestly, if anything, I'm surprised that this comment thread is (reasonably) lucid, because that's not how a lot of other comment threads recently on similar issues have gone. [0] In the literal (non-normative) sense: a positive feedback loop is one which amplifies the effects, whether or not the end effects are "good" or "bad".
  - Jensson 1y ago
    > Collectively, HN has long been extremely comfortable with authoritarianism and far right ideologies, as long as those opinions are expressed in a framing that conveys intellectualism and "civility". HN also does the same for far left authoritarian ideologies, those are also here and upvoted. I don't see how this pushes out anyone.
    - chimeracoder 1y ago

by doom2 1y ago

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

ajross 1y ago

> I don't think it was simply being repelled by the left, as Andreesson has stated before, but an earnest rightward turn. The clear contention in the linked article is that it's neither. It's just plain old group think fed by an echo chamber. You take a genuine-but-isolated affront or conflict[1], tie it to one or two other less important side issues[2], and then just line everyone up on the "good" or "bad" side of a line. Before you know it our community is cheering the return of a regime that literally tried to stage a coup and making tortuous excuses for why we need to be deporting four year old citizens with cancer. It's 4chan. It's just 4chan all over again. [1] Ex: the anti-elite current within the lefty political sphere that has never really loved the idea of making common cause with SV billionaires. [2] Middle aged dudes, demographically, tend to be a little squicked out by trans rights and pronouns and LGBTQ+ issues, think paper straws are dumb as fuck, and really hated seeing stuff burned down in protets.

kenjackson 1y ago

> After years of the left being accused of suppressing opposing views, I haven't seen quite the same backlash against conservatives building up ideologically homogenous spaces like the group chats in the article. The fundamental difference is that conservative viewpoints support the majority (or plurality), whereas the liberal viewpoints support the minority view. Backlash against the majority view is much harder to come by. And being in the majority and supporting minority perspectives is more uncomfortable, and frankly much easier to opt-out of if there is sufficient discomfort.

roguecoder 1y ago
If that were true, Republicans would spend a lot less effort on voter suppression & wouldn't have needed to have the Supreme Court repeal the Voting Rights Act in order to win.
- kenjackson 1y ago
  This is orthogonal to my point. Modern Republicans are populists who try to appeal to the majority constituency. But their policies are generally so bad (and mean-spirited) that they don't have broad appeal even amongst that group.
dralley 1y ago
> The fundamental difference is that conservative viewpoints support the majority (or plurality), whereas the liberal viewpoints support the minority view. Be specific and put up numbers. There is a wide, wide swath of issues where the "liberal" position is the majoritarian one.
- kenjackson 1y ago
  Conservative positions are generally pro-hetero, white, and Christian. Also male, but that is the one where they're not the majority, but very close to 50/50. There are "liberal" positions that are popular, but generally the current big conservative pushes are against minority populations. E.g., DEI, trans, immigrants (from certain countries), etc...
  - int_19h 1y ago
    You present it as a dichotomy when that's not actually the case. I'm heterosexual and white, but I don't see how policies that e.g. allow gay people to marry - a stereotypically "liberal" position - harm me in any way. There are some things where it's a zero-sum game, such as affirmative action. And those do in fact tend to be less popular even among liberals (as evidenced by referendums on those topics in blue states). But that's a relatively small part of the overall liberal platform.

wat10000 1y ago

[flagged]

femiagbabiaka 1y ago

There was lots of resentment against unionization efforts from tech workers -- workers who were increasingly seen as ungrateful insurgents trying to mess up a good thing -- and tech oligarchs decided that everyone left of center was exactly like tech workers in Silicon Valley. For them, leftists are infected with a "mind virus", and needing some enlightened elites to save them from themselves. Of course there's no self-reflection about the mind virus that causes folks like Andreesen to use the philosophy of meth addicted neo-Nazis[1] as the ideological basis for their new political order. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Land https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Land

vuggamie 1y ago

Like all other forums, public and private, HN has an ideological filter. I'm as surprised as the next person that the HN ideological filter turned out not to be permissive enough to discuss the downfall of the free society that fostered its creation. The oligarchs will not lose their freedom or power and they won't fight (or even inconvenience themselves) to preserve yours. Next time you're reading a blog or a biography of a tech billionaire, remember that they got their wealth from wage theft and they will keep their power by destroying yours. The only law tech companies -- and the oligarchs that own and control them -- have to obey is allegiance to Trump. No other law will be enforced.

chimeracoder 1y ago
> Like all other forums, public and private, HN has an ideological filter. I'm as surprised as the next person that the HN ideological filter turned out not to be permissive enough to discuss the downfall of the free society that fostered its creation. Is it that surprising? As a longtime member, this seems perfectly consistent with the general bent of the website. Collectively, HN has long been extremely comfortable with authoritarianism and far right ideologies, as long as those opinions are expressed in a framing that conveys intellectualism and "civility". Those same expectations are weaponized to drive out dissenting voices, which creates a positive[0] feedback loop. Honestly, if anything, I'm surprised that this comment thread is (reasonably) lucid, because that's not how a lot of other comment threads recently on similar issues have gone. [0] In the literal (non-normative) sense: a positive feedback loop is one which amplifies the effects, whether or not the end effects are "good" or "bad".
- Jensson 1y ago
  > Collectively, HN has long been extremely comfortable with authoritarianism and far right ideologies, as long as those opinions are expressed in a framing that conveys intellectualism and "civility". HN also does the same for far left authoritarian ideologies, those are also here and upvoted. I don't see how this pushes out anyone.
  - chimeracoder 1y ago