3 ms·
It was already going downhill a decade ago, eg, using bad think on video games. But my personal experience is something snapped in a lot of people during COVID
by zmgsabst 8mo ago
It was already going downhill a decade ago, eg, using bad think on video games.
But my personal experience is something snapped in a lot of people during COVID when people asked reasonable questions like — “is an experimental gene therapy really QALY positive in populations not at risk, such as healthy children?”
According to government actuarial tables, the answer was no: the UK government concluded that there was no point at which for those under 40 the immunizations prevented more serious outcomes than they caused. But people were (and often still are) absolutely rabid if you point out we (in administering a QALY negative treatment to a vulnerable population) decided to poison children and young adults en masse. I’ve had people look up my mother on Facebook for calmly citing UK government actuarial reports, which did the calculation on COVID vs vaccine harms.
That’s setting aside that on HN you’d get shadowbanned for even posting the clip of BLM leaders describing themselves as “trained Marxists” and BLM itself as Marxist in ideology. Apparently, no matter how politely you state facts, if HN froths irrationally in response it is an “inherent flamewar”.
But I’m not sure I qualify for what you’re asking, as I generally post under my true identity, not anonymously.
- datsci_est_2015 8mo agoYour examples are tips of icebergs that indicate much more problematic opinions. I’m not shocked you received pushback.
- zmgsabst 8mo agoThat’s exactly my point: HN is a place where people don’t ask what is true with intellectual curiosity but classify opinions as “problematic” and justify bullying people based on that. HN becomes emotionally upset if you discuss actuarial tables or quote people’s own words from their own presentations because those facts go against the narratives many on HN believe — and like many before them, people on HN believe censorship and bullying are justified by that emotional turmoil. As you just did, impugning my character while carefully avoiding the veracity of my claims — only saying they’re “problematic”, as a good apparatchik would.
- Garnish0062 8mo agoMuch indeed. The word "problematic" is one of the most terribly overused words in today's age.
- gusgus01 8mo agoI mean they made claims about the efficacy and risks of the COVID vaccine without sourcing them and used verbiage like "poisoning our children" to refer to vaccinating them. I think tip of the iceberg for "problematic opinions" is a fair response.
- datsci_est_2015 8mo agoYeah it’s a euphemism and a bit of a shibboleth, which, like all shibboleths, can be a bit triggering to those who feel outgrouped by it. I could’ve been more precise: “opinions that are based on weak evidence that confirm a certain preimagined view of the world rather than challenge it”.
- expedition32 8mo agoAh a fancy description for religion! I would like to say that this is why my country turned to atheism but really it was the Sunday morning.
- 1shooner 8mo agoDo you have a citation for said actuarial tables? I think HN is often critical of objective claims without objective references.
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- hellojesus 8mo agoHN was one of the best places for finding cited research regarding covid and the mrna tech at the time. With all the other conflicting information floating around online, it was a breath of fresh air to come to HN and see articles describing exactly how mrna works and why it was likely not a health risk, complete with thoughtful discussion. I'm too lazy to go look up citations and reference those old posts, so you can take this as anecdotal.
- eth0up 8mo agoJust noting that I appreciate all the examples given here and by others, many of which made me feel a bit stupid and amnesic for asking my original question. I guess I have been over-focused on AI...
- majormajor 8mo ago> That’s setting aside that on HN you’d get shadowbanned for even posting the clip of BLM leaders describing themselves as “trained Marxists” and BLM itself as Marxist in ideology. Apparently, no matter how politely you state facts, if HN froths irrationally in response it is an “inherent flamewar”. Funny how you mention this like you expect everyone to take for granted that Marxist=bad and worth "hiding" etc... whereas negative reactions are likely due more towards that internal judgement discrediting yourself, vs trying to "hide the Marxism." You think you can discredit people by saying "they're Marxists!" and yet you think people today are uniquely bad snowflakes about views they don't like. You're proposing that people are more likely to cry thoughtcrime now than in the past, by inadvertently exposing how you've bought into this idea of how just invoking the name of some old philosopher is worth demonization and has been for DECADES in many western countries... Specs and logs, motes and beams. Which specific points from which specific Marx texts piss you off so much? (It's also funny that you didn't actually link to any of the things you stated. I don't care about the things you brought up enough to go hunting for them myself to try do prove or disprove you, but... do you really think saying "I can't cite these simple facts without getting in trouble" *without even citing them, just asking us to believe you that they're easily cite-able, is gonna go over so convincingly?)
- ggfdh 8mo agoIf there’s nothing wrong with Marxism then his comment is a golden opportunity to show all the positive outcomes of Marxist policies/governments.
- the_other 8mo agoAny functioning national health service. Any national education system. Transport networks. Nations with unprivatised water systems.