Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Advocating for Nationalism is a typical example. Or restrictive immigration policies.

These seem to be considered by many to be synonymous with racism.




Try advocating for open borders, an end to Capitalism and the dissolution of the Nation State. This, too, is beyond the pale for the bulk of Hacker News readers.


Likely because the discussions around them are pretty vapid. Open borders and the dissolution of the nation state are at odds with having any kind of social safety net, preventing violent mobs from taking over, preventing the remaining world powers from taking over, etc.

Ending capitalism hasn’t worked anywhere, ever. What are the logistics of that even if it doesn’t involve violently forcing people to stop trading goods and services directly? Who sets prices, who sets salaries, who decides how ore from mines is used and how electricity is divided?

In all of the posts I’ve seen advocating for those things, none include anything resembling intellectual curiosity. It’s always just a quip in response to the revelation that some people have less than others.


"Discussions around them are pretty vapid," he said, before diving into the most well-worn cliches on the subject.

You could do some deeper reading. It's intellectually dishonest to eschew a subject for your own superficial understanding of it.

1. https://crimethinc.com/books/no-wall-they-can-build 2. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/187149.Open_Veins_of_Lat...


I have, and the two links you provided are perfect examples of the detached quips I’m speaking of. A whimsical rehash of Marxist ideas without any relevance to how it should work (you’ll notice this is how all Marxist books function) and a book about Mexican migrants that does nothing to address what replaces the positive features of a nation state in the context of fully open borders.


> a book about Mexican migrants

No, it's primarily about the people of Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador.

Just one of many trivially falsifiable positions you hold.


Can you give some examples where those "truths" have been downvoted?


Unironically, my very comment above (as well as others in this thread, the topic of which is heresy!) is gathering downvotes as we speak, despite it being technically correct. Normally this would bother me, but this time I find it pleasing because it illustrates the point.

My intuition is suggesting to me that your inclusion of "truths" in quotation marks suggests you are primed to expect me to reply with some things that I believe to be true, but that are false. Obviously I am speculating, but I find thinking about the nature of communication in fine detail to be extremely interesting.

Also, pardon the delay in reply as I'm quite sure my account is flagged and rate-limited for participating in flame wars, or more specifically, holding incorrect beliefs in flame wars. I believe this latter point because it takes two to tango in a flame war, and if you pay attention when warnings are handed out for such offenses here on HN, you may notice a pattern of the person receiving the warning is the one who holds the heretical view, despite many people being participants. I say this mostly as just an interesting aside, but I believe it does to some degree fairly illustrate the possibility of bias that exists on HN, including at the moderation level. Since the degree to which my speculation is true is not knowable, casual dismissals must not be based on pure logic, but rather a mixture of conscious logic and subconscious heuristics. Sometimes what's so easy to see in others, is near impossible to see in ourselves - such is the nature of the human mind.

As for some examples of what I'm talking about:

Here is a person taking the definition of Fascism and applying it to Nationalism:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21504768

Here is a person who seems to believe they can both read minds and predict the future (but apparently can not defend the facts they have learned during those exercises):

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21501182

Here is a person who believes that it is impossible to love one nation more than others. Knowing such a thing would also require mind reading abilities:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21501200

More mind reading, and the stating of opinions as if they were facts (this is very common):

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21500900

I mean, on one hand this is just people being people, nothing to lose any sleep over. On the other hand, this isn't /r/politics - is it asking too much that we strive for a higher standard of thinking and discourse here on HN? And furthermore, it might be worth considering if this sort of behavior might be counter-productive to the speaker's goals in more way than one.


So I've read each of these threads. Seems like you were engaged in particularily divisive topics with those that have strongly held beliefs. For what it's worth, I found your thoughts to be the more reasonable stance.


Strongly held beliefs are perfectly fine. Presenting opinions (or information derived from reading of minds or the future) as fact, is not - in my personal opinion that is, my opinion is clearly not shared by all others on HN. Perhaps the ends do justify the means.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: