3 ms·

[flagged]

by ivape 1y ago

[flagged]

N_Lens 1y ago
I wonder if I should upvote or downvote you, and what that will say about my HN profile to “big data analyses”
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- immibis 1y ago
  It doesn't matter. If you vote on politics a lot, a moderator will set your account so the votes don't do anything. HN is the illusion of user-generated content.
  - globalnode 1y ago
    O_o
eastbound 1y ago
> The racism and selfishness of right-wing politics is just … ugh, honestly, I just can’t. It’s Godless. The first step would be to humbly recognize your side’s shortcomings. To me, aiding the destruction of malls, pardoning authors of crimes is bad, protesting against having borders is worse and defunding the police is a hallmark of criminality (and before you say it: Defunding doesn’t mean rearranging, it means defunding, according to protesters on your camp). There are two essential Christian concepts that you skip when you unilaterally hold your opponent for contempt of humanity: - Those who have never sinned should throw the first stone, - Pardon. Once you become milder in your accusations, maybe we can design a common world where we have common principles. I’d say those principles should be etched into law, but your side is against law enforcement, so it’s a bit complicated.
- rkomorn 1y ago
  > Once you become milder in your accusations ... > but your side is against law enforcement
  - eastbound 1y ago
    It’s easy to say “The other camp is extreme, so we have to”, but you’re welcome if you have any proposal. My proposal is: I think an extreme lot of my camp would switch if there was an ethical left, with strong ethics but also not prone to degrading whites. What’s your proposal?
    - rkomorn 1y ago
      My proposal is that you drop the holier than thou attitude.
      - eastbound 1y ago
        And what will it do?
        rkomorn 1y ago
        It'll help make you look like someone who actually practices what they preach.
        eastbound 1y ago
        Ok, so your goal is not to share the governance of a country together? With your proposal, I make concessions (which, by all means, is the concession that I stop arguing, so that’s a general concession on the idea of negotiating together entirely), while you don’t make concessions, and then we don’t govern the country together, is it correct? Sounds like extremism to me. Either you get the power, either we do, but it’s a struggle of power if you do not engage in listening. The goal is discussion is that you will discover points on which you can compromise without hurting your values, and we do as well, until we deal together. But it seems Americans have lost that. Which is mirrored by the line of your party: “Don’t engage with the other party. No concession.” It is one-sided. The discussion has always been open on the right, but people moved to the right because the discussion was closed on the left.
- VagabundoP 1y ago
  Many of the religious views I see coming out of the US right now aren't Christian, ie following Christ, but some Abrahamic[1] mishmash wrapped up in jingoism. [1] not sure what to call it maybe fundamentalism.
- DrewADesign 1y ago
  Ok, so it looks like you conveniently skipped over your own first step.
decremental 1y ago
[dead]
0xDEAFBEAD 1y ago
This sort of vague, association-based reasoning can be used to prove anything. The US is a country with over 200 years of history, currently with hundreds of millions of citizens. You can cherry-pick whatever "visuals" from whatever "inflection points" you want, in order to prove whatever conclusion you want. For example, here is a thread on /r/AmerExit, a subreddit you would expect to have an anti-American bias, on racism in the EU vs the US. The strong consensus is that EU racism is worse: https://old.reddit.com/r/AmerExit/comments/17g68zx/pervasive_and_relentless_racism_on_the_rise_in/ https://old.reddit.com/r/AmerExit/comments/17g68zx/pervasive... Or here is the Wikipedia page on charitable giving by country, which shows the US is easily the most generous nation in the world as a fraction of GDP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_charitable_donation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_charitabl... If you learn about the history of other countries, you'll find that they usually have dark stuff in their past as well. You claim that standing up against Nazis is "very low hanging fruit", but there's a considerable list of countries which cooperated substantially with the Nazis, including Italy, Japan, Romania, Croatia, the USSR, etc. France was torturing thousands of Algerians who were fighting for their independence as recently as the 1960s. Ultimately this entire project of trying to discover and interrogate a "national character" is a little silly in my opinion. Especially through the sort of cherry-picking I did above. Yes, it's a very popular topic of internet flamewars. But I've never seen compelling evidence that "national character" has significant predictive value. People are people wherever you go, people respond to incentives, etc. We should default to structural explanations for human behavior, rather than explanations based on "national character". For example, consider this recent Substack post on how climate caused the US Civil War: https://substack.com/home/post/p-170433170 https://substack.com/home/post/p-170433170 I expect the majority of historical events can be explained in the manner of that Substack post, if you look hard enough. Same way I'm rather skeptical of "Great Man" theories of history, I'm also rather skeptical of "Great Nation" or "Great Culture" theories of history.
- ivape 1y ago
  I'm also rather skeptical of "Great Nation" or "Great Culture" theories of history. Quoting Hateful Eight: ”So, I’m supposed to freeze to death ’cause you find it hard to believe?” - Chris Mannix I can’t do anything about your skepticism. There’s about 7-10 things I casually left out, no cherry picking in sight. You can’t figure out that Lincoln was a great man, then what else is there to say? We’re taking decades of slavery if something didn’t compel him. Half the country still fought him, and half the country still partook in on going racism for over a hundred years, with zero let up since 1860s up to, literally, 2025. I can’t help you with discernment.

[flagged]

by ivape 1y ago

[flagged]

N_Lens 1y ago

I wonder if I should upvote or downvote you, and what that will say about my HN profile to “big data analyses”

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
immibis 1y ago
It doesn't matter. If you vote on politics a lot, a moderator will set your account so the votes don't do anything. HN is the illusion of user-generated content.
- globalnode 1y ago
  O_o

eastbound 1y ago

> The racism and selfishness of right-wing politics is just … ugh, honestly, I just can’t. It’s Godless. The first step would be to humbly recognize your side’s shortcomings. To me, aiding the destruction of malls, pardoning authors of crimes is bad, protesting against having borders is worse and defunding the police is a hallmark of criminality (and before you say it: Defunding doesn’t mean rearranging, it means defunding, according to protesters on your camp). There are two essential Christian concepts that you skip when you unilaterally hold your opponent for contempt of humanity: - Those who have never sinned should throw the first stone, - Pardon. Once you become milder in your accusations, maybe we can design a common world where we have common principles. I’d say those principles should be etched into law, but your side is against law enforcement, so it’s a bit complicated.

rkomorn 1y ago
> Once you become milder in your accusations ... > but your side is against law enforcement
- eastbound 1y ago
  It’s easy to say “The other camp is extreme, so we have to”, but you’re welcome if you have any proposal. My proposal is: I think an extreme lot of my camp would switch if there was an ethical left, with strong ethics but also not prone to degrading whites. What’s your proposal?
  - rkomorn 1y ago
    My proposal is that you drop the holier than thou attitude.
    - eastbound 1y ago
      And what will it do?
      - rkomorn 1y ago
        It'll help make you look like someone who actually practices what they preach.
        eastbound 1y ago
        Ok, so your goal is not to share the governance of a country together? With your proposal, I make concessions (which, by all means, is the concession that I stop arguing, so that’s a general concession on the idea of negotiating together entirely), while you don’t make concessions, and then we don’t govern the country together, is it correct? Sounds like extremism to me. Either you get the power, either we do, but it’s a struggle of power if you do not engage in listening. The goal is discussion is that you will discover points on which you can compromise without hurting your values, and we do as well, until we deal together. But it seems Americans have lost that. Which is mirrored by the line of your party: “Don’t engage with the other party. No concession.” It is one-sided. The discussion has always been open on the right, but people moved to the right because the discussion was closed on the left.
VagabundoP 1y ago
Many of the religious views I see coming out of the US right now aren't Christian, ie following Christ, but some Abrahamic[1] mishmash wrapped up in jingoism. [1] not sure what to call it maybe fundamentalism.
DrewADesign 1y ago
Ok, so it looks like you conveniently skipped over your own first step.

decremental 1y ago

[dead]

0xDEAFBEAD 1y ago

This sort of vague, association-based reasoning can be used to prove anything. The US is a country with over 200 years of history, currently with hundreds of millions of citizens. You can cherry-pick whatever "visuals" from whatever "inflection points" you want, in order to prove whatever conclusion you want. For example, here is a thread on /r/AmerExit, a subreddit you would expect to have an anti-American bias, on racism in the EU vs the US. The strong consensus is that EU racism is worse: https://old.reddit.com/r/AmerExit/comments/17g68zx/pervasive_and_relentless_racism_on_the_rise_in/ https://old.reddit.com/r/AmerExit/comments/17g68zx/pervasive... Or here is the Wikipedia page on charitable giving by country, which shows the US is easily the most generous nation in the world as a fraction of GDP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_charitable_donation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_charitabl... If you learn about the history of other countries, you'll find that they usually have dark stuff in their past as well. You claim that standing up against Nazis is "very low hanging fruit", but there's a considerable list of countries which cooperated substantially with the Nazis, including Italy, Japan, Romania, Croatia, the USSR, etc. France was torturing thousands of Algerians who were fighting for their independence as recently as the 1960s. Ultimately this entire project of trying to discover and interrogate a "national character" is a little silly in my opinion. Especially through the sort of cherry-picking I did above. Yes, it's a very popular topic of internet flamewars. But I've never seen compelling evidence that "national character" has significant predictive value. People are people wherever you go, people respond to incentives, etc. We should default to structural explanations for human behavior, rather than explanations based on "national character". For example, consider this recent Substack post on how climate caused the US Civil War: https://substack.com/home/post/p-170433170 https://substack.com/home/post/p-170433170 I expect the majority of historical events can be explained in the manner of that Substack post, if you look hard enough. Same way I'm rather skeptical of "Great Man" theories of history, I'm also rather skeptical of "Great Nation" or "Great Culture" theories of history.

ivape 1y ago
I'm also rather skeptical of "Great Nation" or "Great Culture" theories of history. Quoting Hateful Eight: ”So, I’m supposed to freeze to death ’cause you find it hard to believe?” - Chris Mannix I can’t do anything about your skepticism. There’s about 7-10 things I casually left out, no cherry picking in sight. You can’t figure out that Lincoln was a great man, then what else is there to say? We’re taking decades of slavery if something didn’t compel him. Half the country still fought him, and half the country still partook in on going racism for over a hundred years, with zero let up since 1860s up to, literally, 2025. I can’t help you with discernment.