My impression is that the site has gradually shifted right, but the Overton window has shifted right faster giving the illusion that it has gone left.
Edit: There is something ironic to be said about my very benign comment triggering someone to the point that they felt compelled to create an account and call me classically right wing slurs (subhuman, animal, low-iq). I think its worth considering that the internet/social media has contributed to a growing mental health crisis. Hurt, sick and lonely people seem to congregate online.
Are you saying the realm of acceptable things one can say had shifted to the right? I may have misunderstood because I've never heard that before. I can see that maybe one could claim the leftward shift has stopped and momentum is to the right, but I don't think the fever has broken yet, and I've never even heard anyone claim it has, outside of a few "tide is turning" twitter posts.
(I'm using left/right as I think they're commonly used now, the traditional split isn't really relevant)
> Are you saying the realm of acceptable things one can say had shifted to the right? I may have misunderstood because I've never heard that before.
I'm kind of surprised by your surprise, because i feel like for years now people never shut up about the realm of acceptable things shifting right.
Although personally i think its less a right/left thing and more extremes on both sides becoming more vocal with the moderates being squeezed out. Its always easier to fixate on the crazy thing the other is saying then to look at one's own side.
I feel like some of the eat the rich-type rhetoric you see on reddit would be much less acceptable a decade ago.
Edit: i misread your comment as the opposite of what it said and am confused. I am not claiming that i believe left-wing views that used to be acceptable are not anymore. I am claiming i see people say all the time that the right end of the overton window has expanded out so that right wing views that used to be unacceptable are acceptable now (which i agree with, but i think the same could be said for the left, maybe not to the same extent).
I suspect that if elections had the HN commentariat as the voters, it would result in landslide wins for most Democratic politicians. I don't think this has shifted much in the last decade.
That itself doesn't dispute your point, as I can sympathize with the idea that Democrats aren't particularly left-wing. But I'd also caution against using that as the yardstick, since most people do think of Democrats as "the Left" and it can result in confusion.
Broadly speaking, I'd say HN comments more or less center around the Democratic mainstream, but with a very high level of variance in political viewpoints compared to the general population. You get everything from unreconstructed Stalinists to Mencius Moldbug acolytes here.
> But I'd also caution against using that as the yardstick, since most people do think of Democrats as "the Left" and it can result in confusion.
The problem with reducing things to the colloquial US scale is it lets idiots dominate and control discussion and shits out people outside the status-quo.
Say I’m a radical right winger who’s not a republican or a radical leftist who is not a democrat, and I want to engage in a discussion.
There’s always some dumbass who will associate/accuse you of something you don’t actually believe because you’re [left/right] and therefore you must support Democrat policy X or Republican policy Y. Of course then you backtrack and try to refute them and it just becomes a pointless back and forth completely off topic.
Combine that with the general political illiteracy on this site and the fact that garbage seems not to get flagged if it’s within the zeitgeist of the thread’s current browsers and you get the political flamewars that aren’t supposed to happen here yet so commonly do.
The general culture has gotten a lot more polarized. I'm not sure there even is a singular Overton window any more; the set of things you can acceptably say to either political tribe is narrow and they've pulled apart so far that there's no overlap in the centre.
Climate change, healthcare, education, deregulation, tax cuts, the military budget and accountability, manufacturing, immigration, criminal justice, the justice system, whistleblowers, etc.
There are entire states now insisting that child rape victims carry their rapist's baby to term, threatening any doctor that may assist even in other states. That's insane, and it's what "the right" have been systematically working toward for decades.
The planet is on track for immolation; irreversible and catastrophic global warming, but the Overton Window doesn't allow protestors to throw paint on the perspex screen over famous artwork.
Apologies if that wasn't actually a serious question; Poe's Law, yaknow?
The way your reply is phrased, I'm not sure if you're talking specifically about HN's Overton window, or the more general political climate.
On the general political climate, I don't think the right has really changed their positions on most of those issues, except a bit for the military budget recently where some on the left and right have almost flipped. Edit: and I should mention that younger Republicans have shown more concern about climate change.
On HN's political lean, I can see an argument why it might have started out more left, given its silicon valley heritage which then may have grown to reflect the more general population as its popularity grew. Having perused here for 12 years, I recall always seeing a diversity of opinions on all of those topics though, including the ones you list. Then again, my memory ain't what it used to be.
> I don't think the right has really changed their positions on most of those issues
The facts have come in more and more regarding the effect of deregulation, tax cuts for the wealthy, illegal and self-destructive wars, and especially climate change.
So, conservatives have had to swerve the Overton Window very hard indeed to maintain such positions in the face of recorded reality.
And that all filters through to here, eventually, in countless ways. The jarring difference between the reality we need and the reality people are cynically pummeled into believing has ripple effects across culture, here and elsewhere.
I don't see what the factual status of any of these policies have to do with the topic at hand. They're immaterial to the question of whether the Overton window has shifted right.
From what I gather, you seem to agree that the right has been and continues to argue for the same policies now as they did decades ago, and for basically the same reasons, and therefore, you must agree that they have not shifted the Overton window on those issues. The only issue they arguably expanded slightly rightward was abortion, and only very recently.
On most other issues it seems like the Overton window expanded to the left while the right side has not changed much.
Does it even make sense to say the Overton window shifted one way or another? The claim is meaningless without also including whether the window widened, narrowed or stayed the same width. The whole point of the window is that it defines the left and right bounds of acceptable discourse. So does "shift right" mean that both the left and right edges shifted to the right? Or that the left stayed in place while the window widened to the right? Or that the right stayed in place while the window narrowed toward it?
I would say that the window has shifted on at least the following topics:
* vigilantism and militias - the Jan 6 rioters, George Zimmerman or Kyle Rittenhouse are widely celebrated in right-wing media, I don't think this really happened in the early 2000s
* overt racism - racism scandals from the 90s/2000s, like the Willie Horton ad or the "Macaca" incident seems rather tame compared with what I've seen from figures like Trump or Tucker Carlson.
* the mainstream Republican view is that the Democratic party manipulated the election results and 2020 was a fraudulent election, I don't remember anything like the mainstream acceptance of this kind of conspiracy theory after the 2008 or 2012 elections.
> * vigilantism and militias - the Jan 6 rioters, George Zimmerman or Kyle Rittenhouse are widely celebrated in right-wing media, I don't think this really happened in the early 2000s
I don't think Republicans changed their stance on militias. This has always had conservative support because it's literally in the constitution.
As for rioting, I suppose it depends on how you frame the Overton window. The left has always tolerated and even justified rioting, eg. I remember way back to the 1992 LA riots over Rodney King. So "rioting over perceived injustice" has always been within the existing Overton window, it's just new that the right did it this time.
As for vigilantism, I dunno. Self-defense and gun rights has been a core value in Republican circles since forever. Agree with the framing or not, self-defense is how those cases are presented in conservative circles.
> * overt racism - racism scandals from the 90s/2000s, like the Willie Horton ad or the "Macaca" incident seems rather tame compared with what I've seen from figures like Trump or Tucker Carlson.
Hmm, maybe. I've found there's too much silly pearl-clutching with Trump and Carlson generally speaking, but I'm not familiar enough with the racism scandals in that time period to compare.
I just watched the Willie Horton ad on Youtube and read about what happened, and I'm not sure why that should be considered racist. Horton was probably the worst outcome from that policy, and he happens to be black. Using the worst outcome of a policy your opponent fought for seems like fair game to me.
> * the mainstream Republican view is that the Democratic party manipulated the election results and 2020 was a fraudulent election, I don't remember anything like the mainstream acceptance of this kind of conspiracy theory after the 2008 or 2012 elections.
Democrats played up Bush v. Gore as a stolen election.
Democrats also played up the 2016 election being stolen by Russia, and the President's practically treasonous collusion with that foreign state to do so.
I think you're being way too easy on the Democrats here. Furthermore, Republicans have been trying to restrain voting rights for years with talk of fraudulent votes. Talk of "stolen elections" has definitely been within the Overton window for some time now.
I mean everything has been around but we're talking about mainstream acceptance. Trump said that the elections were stolen and the violent riots were justified. What major figure from either party supported anti-government violence before?
Voting fraud was a talking point going back at least to Von Spakovsky under Bush but this was a minor figure who wasn't taken very seriously at the time. Now it's supported by the party leadership.
The moderate Republican party elites were in control up to the tea party movement. This was what the tea party itself was saying: our views are not being represented. Mottos like "America First" and "Drain the Swamp" were relegated to third-party candidacies like Buchanan 2000.
BTW there has been movement on the left too, I'm focusing on the right because that's what you asked about. The 1990s were a moment of remarkable elite consensus with the centrist DLC in control on the left and the more moderate GOP factions on the right. This led to memes about "both parties are the same" like "Kang and Kodos" (1990) and "Giant Douche vs Shit Sandwich" (2004). Since then American politics have polarized and the parties have moved much further apart. The concept of an "Overton window" doesn't even make as much sense anymore, because many people take offense at mainstream views of the other side (e.g. "trans women are women" or "Jan 6 was justified because the 2020 election was stolen by Biden")
Transgender healthcare and transgender existence as a whole is a particularly overt and luminescent example. We have always been seen as weird, but for decades I could generally expect to be able to go to a doctor and have it covered by insurance. Now in some states the government and its police forces would imprison that doctor for providing treatment and imprison my wife for teaching in a K12 school. We didn't have a lot of explicit rights in the past but we also didn't have these kinds of massive targeting and demonization campaigns by elected officials.
> We have always been seen as weird, but for decades I could generally expect to be able to go to a doctor and have it covered by insurance.
This might be a good example, but I admit that the insurance situation in the US is so bizarre that I have no intuitions on this, re: insurance covering gender transition. Is insurance no longer covering it or something? If so, is this a legislated restriction?
It is true that states are banning this kind of care for minors, but consent around minors is pretty tricky, and some people like to ignore the nuances for simple soundbites.
It's not clear cut because it's a sort "new" topic, so it's hard to gauge where conservatives stood. For instance, abortion is a clear example of something that was "settled" in a sense and almost everyone had moved on, but the GOP blew it open again. Clear rightward shift of the Overton window.
I agree the pushback on books and school topics might count towards a rightward shift on the Overton window. Banning the teaching of evolution has always kind of been a hobby horse of the extreme right though, so not totally unheard of. It is more widespread, so kind of fits the mould of abortion.
> We didn't have a lot of explicit rights in the past but we also didn't have these kinds of massive targeting and demonization campaigns by elected officials.
Agreed, but we've also seen a rapid demographic shift over the past 10-15 years [1]. I think the massive leftward push on these issues over the past 10 years, coupled with an alarming lack of caution on these demographic shifts, has led to a corresponding rightward pushback because of numerous preventable failures.
> This might be a good example, but I admit that the insurance situation in the US is so bizarre that I have no intuitions on this, re: insurance covering gender transition. Is insurance no longer covering it or something? If so, is this a legislated restriction?
"Insurance is arbitrarily evil" can be used to explain many phenomenona in the US, but it is increasingly legislative, yes.
> It is true that states are banning this kind of care for minors, but consent around minors is pretty tricky, and some people like to ignore the nuances for simple soundbites.
There's not any nuance to it, they're straight up taking consent away from kids. The kid knows and consents to it, there's doctors and therapists and medical staff willing to help, and parents (though they shouldn't matter either way) are often glad to sign off on it too. The only entity not "consenting" is the state, and it's none of its business in the first place. Taking away someone's right to say "yes" is just as bad as taking away their "no." I have friends who would have made it to 18 if they couldn't transition.
>I think the massive leftward push on these issues over the past 10 years, coupled with an alarming lack of caution on these demographic shifts, has led to a corresponding rightward pushback because of numerous preventable failures.
Can you give some examples of this? I am humbly unaware of what you are specifically referencing.
That's an interesting observation, but I think it depends on time period you look at.
A few years ago, the discussion certainly seemed more Left-ish than now, especially around BLM/trans/women-in-tech issues.
HN of 5+ years ago was a mix of libertarianism/pro-business on the economic side but I'd say center-left socially - ie generally supportive of social support programs
Now, I think both econ and social have both moved towards the center. The libertarianism is still there, but is more "pure" in that it's far more skeptical of business ethics. There still seems to be a decent contingent of hardcore socialists and communists, too. Politically, I think the "woke" stuff is being seen through a more critical lens (or at least, people are more comfortable expressing that criticism) than a few years ago.
Failing to mention his involvement with the US security services seems like an oversight. We don't know exactly what technology he add access to at the time.
Much though I loved the original man from U.N.C.L.E. they didn't actually have access to significantly better electric typewriters than the rest of us. Ritchie and his professional typists used commodity typing machines, with the interchange of fonts, and mechanical positioning capability of the best of breed in market at the time.
If you needed to forge russian or german papers, you used second hand russian typewriters. They were available. the NSA didn't have magic 1200dpi+ printing any more than anyone else did in the time of phototypesetting: the magic here was how good the lenses and film were. Type foundries did the best they could with large images and then reduced them onto film.
Scientific papers right up to the 1980s accepted hand drawn images: I know because I submitted some, for state-event flow diagrams on an OSI protocol implementation. They published my hand drawn circles and lines.
Worth cutting both some slack cuz the brain is just too complex to rewire when it starts misfiring. We will have to make do with half baked hacks for a long time to come.
It depends on the doctor. I know some who keep up with stuff, and some who don't and just rake in the cash.
It's worth making friends with the ones who keep up with stuff. Doctors like to party but they're so fucking overworked that they hit you up at like 11pm most of the time.
The point is that being raped shouldn’t have made her more likely to be caught.
I think this is a fair stance to take, as DNA from rape kits being used for future tracking of the raped is going to disincentivise the use of rape kits.
I want to live in a world with less sexual violence, and if rape victims can submit DNA evidence without having to worry about state tracking (and those kits actually be analysed) then I think we can get a step closer to that world.
Let me explain why that difference matters. Now, on top of the frustrating fact that there are many, many backlogs in rape kit testing across the country, women know that cooperating with authorities and reporting your rape exposes a victim to lifetime granular surveillance at the DNA level. Now, the imperfections of DNA testing expose every rape victim who submits a test to the false positives, and people who know nothing about the strength of the case will assume that being suspect or being arrested is the same as being convicted: https://gizmodo.com/when-bad-dna-tests-lead-to-false-convict...
I can imagine a world where people think victims deserve the crimes committed against them because victims are more likely to be in a DNA database. Lovely statistics.
No, but we will likely see fewer people coming forward about being raped if they are know that their rape kit can and will be used against them in the future. The SFPD's mistake here is allowing the db of victim DNA from rape kits to ever interface with the general DNA database they use.
In the US, lawful search is limited to reasonable suspicion and warrants. This means that yes, some crimes do go unsolved that might be solved otherwise if police, or the state in general, had unlimited powers of search. It is a trade-off.
It's kind of like how we probably shouldn't arrest people without legal residency when they show up at the police station to report a serious crime. Yes, they're violating the terms of their visa, but ensuring people in that position continue to report even more serious crimes is probably more important.
Reminds me of the documentary Cold Case Hammarskjold where they discover the apartheid era South African government had set up fake medical clinics to infect (Black) Africans with HIV.
> In March health workers administered the vaccine in a poor neighbourhood on the edge of Abbottabad called Nawa Sher. The hepatitis B vaccine is usually given in three doses, the second a month after the first. But in April, instead of administering the second dose in Nawa Sher, the doctor returned to Abbottabad and moved the nurses on to Bilal Town, the suburb where Bin Laden lived.
I don't know if that changes anything. It does appear that they didn't "effectively" vaccinate people when it was convenient.
So what? Why does this bother you? Young black women are hugely under-represented in STEM fields, so this is a nice story of someone breaking through that and it gets coverage.
The insinuation is that she doesn't deserve it, that she was only awarded this because she is a young black woman. Are you really placed to judge this? Do you know the ins-and-outs of the award criteria, what the other candidates were like, have you concertedly worked through your anti-black prejudices? No offence but I doubt all three.
I think their point is: is this getting coverage because it’s actually novel and impressive, or is this relative simple but getting attention because of her race/gender?
In other words: Is the coverage a good signal for whether one should be impressed or not.
It may have merit on inspiring others, particularly underrepresented groups, but I think that’s only adjacent to the parents question of: is this impressive in a vacuum, or just getting traction because of her gender/race, which presumably the parent doesn’t find to be important.
Accusations of “anti black prejudices” may be wrong if their actual point is that the news is prejudicially covering otherwise non newsworthy work primarily because of the gender/race of the creator.
I agree. The problem is that if this is undeserving news coverage of a nonnewsworthy accomplishment, it’s misinformation and has all the problems and baggage associated. It’s incorrect info pushed as truth, in connotation or definition, and that builds up.
I also competed in the sts this year, so i do know the criteria very well; i can tell you with certainty that there were far more impressive and exciting projects in the top 40.
Really the question is how did she do that? If she had parents in the field (probably a common scenario), we don't need to know much more. If it's something else, then we can ask if those conditions can be generalized.
How do you know the question is intended to downplay her remarkable achievements? I first interpreted the question along the lines of Mozart or Tiger Woods and didn't think about it uncharitably until you brought it up.
I took the question as "thats impressive for someone this young, are her parents in related fields so shes been exposed to this stuff or is it all self guided?"
It depends on the school. For Harvard, my understanding is, that it’s required to stay in a dorm and there are limited spaces.
There are awesome resources like Khan Academy that have unlimited spots. But with top schools there are limitations to size based on teachers, city spaces, etc.
it's like gold. the more people have gold, the less valuable the gold is, because it's no longer scarce.
i don't agree that more university students devalue universities however. on the contrary, more university level education is in my opinion the best response to less jobs and automation.
we need ever greater and greater parts of our society in higher education to study, research and teach, because all the low level jobs will eventually be automated away.
but imagine what our society can do if we are all educated to the level of a college professor. with more educated people we can address issues such as pollution and climate-change much more easily, and this can only speed up the advancement of our society.
It ultimately comes down to trust. For example, if the Chinese president decided to make a law that they can't demand data from Chinese companies any more, it's not like Trump would roll this back. Similar to Snowden, do you still trust our government isn't spying on us anymore?
USA is not a communist country, big difference. With political administration changes, also do foreign policy opinions change, along with whatever CIA has to do with foreign sovereignties. One USA regime pardons Manning, another jails him/her. One USA regime bombs Syria, another doesnt. Also, CIA seeded companies are just a few and none of the big ones. Palantir and Oculus are their biggest, not sure Oculus can spy on foreign countries but ok.
I know right? If you ship horrible security flaws so often, eventually no one will think they're intentional :D
Honestly you could probably do it without engineers knowing about it simply by cutting QA and red team budgets.
I'm not saying I think that's what happens at Cisco. Having worked at large companies that actively try to ship secure products, and having observed (as a paying end user) the general terrible-ness of networking hardware, that it is more plausible that they're just not being careful - I want to say incompetent by that is likely unfair to the majority of engineers there.
Of course nothing says that various gov. agencies in many countries aren't auditing the equipment themselves and making use of flaws without publicizing them.
the problem with that statement though is that's also what happens with every internet attached device people buy. At this point I would be surprised if an off the shelf IoT/IoS device didn't have at least one root login and RCE via a command line passed in a url.
I'm talking about the big iron that provides core infrastructure to corporate intranets, and the Internet at large. Comparing that to fly by night IoT shovelware is a bit disingenuous, IMO.
But look at the industry - "Big iron" (Cisco, network solutions?, juniper, dynalink ...) have all had these issues, over and over and over again.
Given the lack of subtlety and the wide spread existence of these same exploits/backdoors/bugs indicates there's a level of care that is missing in engineering of these devices that makes it plausible that this is by ignorance rather than malice.
So your entire argument that when US does it is okay is based on
1. US administration may change and might outlaw whatever unholy thing CIA is doing today;
2. CIA does it at a smaller scale, seeding smaller companies;
I am saying having the US do it is less frightening than China doing it. The Chinese government is still, after all, a communist dictatorship censoring everything. Their internet is more censored than Iran’s. This same Chinese government killed 30 million people during the revolution.
It doesn't mean big companies are not in bed with the defenses industry/CIA. We have plenty of cases we know about and we also know you guys spy the on allies too. Even if the argument is all super powers do it, international vetting is a good way to put pressure on. If all countries join in, the money and influence is there.
<https://preview.redd.it/zyglrv7bsaif1.jpeg?width=1290&format...> apparently.