HN user
The author (Victor Mair) of the piece makes two errors:
(1) Omaha and Council Bluffs are not twin cities. The former doesn't think about the latter, and the latter sees the former as workplace, shopping mall and zoo.
(2) The residents of Omaha didn't coin the term 'Counciltucky.' That privilege belongs to the residents of Council Bluffs themselves.
Reference: a former resident of Council Bluffs who is a current resident of Omaha.
...it turns out there aren't really any laws constraining the executive branch.
There are, but the executive for decades (centuries?) has ignored law inconvenient to its goals, and the legislative has generally shrugged it off, hoping their guy will do the same down the road.
One such restraint? Declaring war. Yet how often has this power been abused by the executive since World War 2? Korea anyone? Vietnam? Central America? The Middle East?
There's been a lot of hand-wringing in this thread about what Trump has done and is doing. Truth is, he's just the latest player in the game we've all participated in, and he's good at it.
To stop him, we'd have to change the rules of the game, as Congress did in 2017 with the Russia sanctions bill.[1] I just don't see that happening 'cause... we're all hoping our guy will do the same (as Trump) down the road.
[1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countering_America%27s_Adversa...>
I think the author, like many today who try to disparage democracy...
Democracy as has been used over the past decade or so (as in, such-and-such is a threat to our democracy) does a fine enough job disparaging itself.
... gets too caught up in the founders as scripture and old word usages.
And yet you also write—
Democracy is superior... because of its moral and rational foundation, that all are created equal, all have universal, inalienable rights...
—which is based on scripture straight out of the founders.
Thing is, many of the founders (and the most important among them) were familiar not just with (then) present-day monarchy, taxation and war, but with ancient Athens, ancient Rome and enlightenment thinkers like John Locke. They had examples of both good and bad democracies to draw lessons from, and they realized early-on that without some binding agreement to rein in the worst tendencies of democracy, the nation wouldn't regularly self-evaluate, correct itself and prevent an implosion by majority rule.
We needn't look back as far as Jim Crow or American Prohibition or McCarthyism to see where 'majorities' can lead us. If you want, think California and its democratic super-majorities over the past decade. Or, if progressive, think of Florida and its anti-lgbt laws. You sure you want majority rule?
The solution is human rights, as implemented in the Bill of Rights.
Which, again, is scripture out of the founders.
But let's say this solution didn't come out of the founders: who decides what human rights are? The majority? University professors? The self-selected intelligentsia? The current governors of California and Florida?
And who decides how these rights are enforced?
Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but I was under the impression this is what most of the world wanted? And if not the world, then most elites in the US?
I speak both from public and personal history: when American leadership signed its various trade treaties with China back in the 90s and earlier, opening itself up to the swift transfer of manufacturing to its one-time enemy, was American leadership not signaling its strong desire to diminish American power for the sake of peace?
And on a personal level: my hippie parents had often railed against American imperialism and voted for candidates they thought could stop it. What did they (and other similarly-minded folks) think would happen once America withdrew from the world stage? Do people who think the same way today believe America will grow stronger by pulling back?
Having been around since the late 60s, I can only say this attitude has been in the making for a long time. I can't point to college sit-ins or Nixon going to China or Carter turning over the Panama Canal or the US-China Relations Act (2000) or anything specific stating 'this is the definitive moment', but this desire for a weaker, more isolationist America is neither surprising nor accidental for those of us who've been watching it grow. It's ultimately what my parents and their contemporaries wanted. It's... dream fulfillment.
Usually, but not always. Here you go—'cinch'. Could replace the first 'c' with s, but the second instance would be a little more difficult, as 'sh' has a softer pronunciation than 'ch' here, which itself is not as hard as 'j' (emoji) or 'ge' (rage).
While I agree with you regarding Toni Morrison, I'm not sure where you're going with the 'almost seem racist in this context' remark.
When I read the article, I read the article, immediately jumping past the headline and lead graphic, not bothering to check who wrote the article before coming back here to read the comments. I only learned of Ms. Morrison's authorship from your top comment.
Outside the story's impression of poverty versus wealth in the 1940's, and without knowing who the author is, what gave you the idea this article had anything to do with race? Or that the person's notions you commented on 'almost seem racist'?
You might check out Zhuangzi (1).
It appears I have to explain myself better.
You've heard the phrase "read the room"? The OP added this article to HN, a site known for its detail-oriented minds (programmers, engineers, technicians, etc.) or, if you prefer another insult, "rules lawyers".
And then someone complains that these same detail-oriented folks find that some of the details in the article are lacking? And tries shaming them into giving up their detail-oriented ways?
Odd flex.
nobody wants to believe the headline/article
Look at the headline—
"'Energy independent' Uruguay runs on 100% renewables for four straight months"
and the article's very first sentence—
"Renewables alone have powered the Uruguayan economy for nearly four straight months."
versus the quote you use (the second sentence of the article)—
"In the three months to end-September 2023, the South American nation generated all of its electricity from renewable sources"
Both the headline and the first sentence are misleading. The writer did this on purpose. My guess is it's because he (Nick Hedley) likely knows that many (most?) people reading the headline won't go past that first sentence and will come away with a false sense of what really happened. Couldn't he have instead spread the good news with "Energy independent Uruguay runs its electrical grid on 100% renewables for four straight months"?
How is asking for upfront honesty being an acerbic pedant?
The OP wrote—
of having an extremely mainstream Californian outlook
One can have the outlook without the residency.
And what is that outlook? Certainly not what CS imagines it to be, e.g. "uncritical technological boosterism and the desire to get rich quick." If one wants the real California ideology, one only need look at Gavin Newsom and the Democratic Party supermajorities of a past decade-plus. Or at the policies enacted by San Fran, LA, and other major California cities in recent years.
Scottish national policy as of late hasn't been too far off this mark. ;-)
By being able to argue for/against Kritiques, you gain the ability to quickly call out the fucking bullshit and go straight to the meat.
I'm not so sure about that. Because, if what Bodnick says is true, the judges never go for the meat but always vote for the sizzle. As she herself wrote, 'For example, many leftist judges will not accept a response to a Marxism kritik that argues that capitalism is good.' Sounds more like the K advocate (with the aid of the judge) is more interested in diffusing aromas than putting ribeye on the table.
Genuine question--if one isn't willing to debate the question at hand, then why debate at all? Why not, as a point of pride or honor or authentic rejection of the topic, withdraw from debate and take the L? It seems the side bringing up the K either is an activist for a different topic no one else wants to hear or is just someone(s) wanting to get one over (even embarrass) their opponent(s) by blind-siding them.
You wrote:
> Previous generations succumbed badly to gender essentialism... and as ever, left a mess for the next generations.
Perhaps previous generations--thousands of them? millions?--realized there's more to gender than blank-slate social constructionism. And the mess is self-created by a younger generation wanting to rebel for want of anything else to rebel against?
See how easy it is to apply ageism in the other direction? /s
You wrote:
Isn't iterative improvement what all science is about?
Yes and no. There's more to science, but iterative improvement is a large part of it.
My issue with psychology (and other soft sciences, e.g. sociology, economics) isn't so much its striving to find answers, but its adopting a one-sided worldview before that striving, thereby coloring their findings with that one side.
Look at what you wrote--'I know it [psychology] is typically viewed as a 'liberal' field'. That's because it IS a liberal (well, a politically Progressive) field--its instructors, its researchers, its practitioners largely are self-admittedly liberal (and further Left on the political spectrum.) And when they hire, they hire like-minds.[1] (Which is a thing humans do--no one wants to work with people they... dislike... for some reason.)
And so, because they've no opposing worldview in their ranks to say 'no', well... can their findings be trusted? [2]
[1] A commentary on the perceived political homogeneity at the University--https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/the_value_...
You wrote--
It's decisions about market fit by executives, not a moral crusade (as we have seen, Hollywood execs aren't really the type for that).
As a Criterion Channel subscriber, I take them at their word when they say in their mission statement [1]--
No matter the medium... Criterion has maintained its pioneering commitment to presenting each film as its maker would want it seen...
Which leads me to ask, did the maker of The French Connection want those slurs removed from his film? (William Friedkin is, after all, still with us.) He certainly seems to have left those slurs in when he and his distributor released the film to audiences in the 70's.
Which makes me curious--just how tough were those previous audiences to be able to withstand the onslaught of slurs that today wilts the average modern viewer? Those moderns could probably use a bit of that stern stuff when looking at the past...
The findings may validate the feelings of anyone oppressed or suffering long-term deprivation, but what does it really mean for their descendants? For example, what were the long-term effects, not just for black Americans, but for survivors of the Irish Potato Famine or the Holocaust? And if the effects were negligible for these latter two groups, what does that mean for the former?
Considering most humans in most places at most times lived in deprived circumstances, I wouldn't jump to conclusions just yet on the nature of Schmitz et al.'s findings. Remember their findings 'could be linked,' not 'are linked.'
Wise people existed then and wise people exist now. The new wise people's wisdom is much more relevant.
Without discussing politics or political topics (e.g. the benefits of diversity in a group of people,) can you give examples of this 'much more relevant' wisdom of today? For example, Aristotle taught metaphysics and aspirational ethics, amongst other topics--can you give examples of today's 'much more relevant' wisdoms that are more relevant than what he had to say? Examples that leave no question as to how much more relevant or, perhaps, more wise those (new vs old) wisdoms are? Thanks.
In answer to your second question: no, not really. The only thing to learn is that, like a certain North Pole elf, Tonto is a work of fiction. As is the Lone Ranger. As are all the bad guys they hunted, the sheriffs they met, the girls they wooed. Even the silver bullets came out of someone else's imagination.
Well... yes. The main work described in the article is a work of fiction. i.e. a work of imagination, which means the author listens to his own inner muse. The protagonist is fiction, his experiences are fiction, his story is fiction. Lies, simply, but (if we're lucky) entertaining lies. The author is under no obligation to listen to others (especially their 'truths',) and may in fact harm his work by listening to others rather than trust his own sense of story. If he's an obligation to anyone, it'll be to the buying (and reading) public who'll decide the fate of his work.
While I won't critique the article, I will critique this response: why bother being on a discussion board if you're not going to discuss or if you're going to ban discussion? You post to a discussion board, you risk discussion, even if contributors to the discussion don't fit your idea of the model participant.
As this thread has died, I'll leave off with a couple of parting comments--as I previously mentioned, the idea of 'reasonable' will change depending on who you ask. When you say 'We should figure out...,' rather than leave reasonableness to an individual 'I,' now it's given to a multitudinous 'we.' That is, the idea is given a democratic flavor, wherein if a majority (even by just one person) thinks this or that speech act is unreasonable, it can enforce its prohibition.
Given your reasonable fear of manipulation/propaganda by those in power, can you see where this might go wrong?
Thus, as Americans, we've done more or less what you've asked--we laid out the ideal, 'Congress shall make no law...,' then we set our local, state and federal bodies of government on the problem of how to work within this ideal. Which, if the solutions are reasonable, will remain law. Which, if an individual (e.g. a flag burner) or a multitude (e.g. a religious sect) thinks are unreasonable, will be challenged through later legislation or through the courts. Potentially landing at the doorstop of a nine-member group called SCOTUS who, using their collective wisdom, will tell us whether we've (or our bodies of government have) gone too far. (And if we as a nation disagree with their decisions, we as a nation have remedies for that as well.) All in a world of moral-less actors.
Is this not reasonable?
Idk why you picked on the word reasonable. But your proving my point by attempting to shut down the discussion already
I picked 'reasonable' because the word has different connotations depending on the participants, for example, I may believe I'm being reasonable, whereas you may believe I'm being obstinate. And that's just talking about the word 'reasonable.' Toss the question of 'who's being reasonable?' into a heated discussion between opposite sides of a Covid-19 debate, or an immigration debate, or an abortion debate, or an Apple debate, and see where it gets you.
There's nuance to speech, the 1st amendment is ambiguous.
The FA is anything but ambiguous. 'Congress shall make no law...' That's Ten Commandments territory as far as clarity goes. Speech coupled with action, or with imminent action, or with likely physical harm is where the US Supreme Court has generally allowed lawmakers to go hog-wild. Burning the US flag (political speech,) using racial epithets (hate speech,) publishing graphic pornography (sex speech,) and refusing to testify against one's spouse (silence) have all been green-lit by SCOTUS.
As has propaganda. Why do you suppose the press is given such wide latitude in libel cases against them by public figures[0]? The press can sway public opinion for or against a politician via lie by omission, reliance on alleged anonymous sources, outright lies and later retractions, out-of-context quotes, associating irrelevant stories or images with a politician, interpreting the politician's words, non-reporting, etc. What is this other than outright manipulation (of both facts and people) and propaganda?
We can further discuss the propaganda(s) of national holidays, of political treatises (e.g. Das Kapital,) of American invasions into the Middle East, all of which are seemingly allowed by SCOTUS, but I'll wrap up by sticking to television commercials--why should ASPCA or The Humane Society be allowed to tug at my heartstrings via dogs in cages? Why should the Reverend Franklin Graham be allowed to preach the word of Jesus to me when I've lost a loved one? Why should a PAC be allowed to run ads associating my pick for the US Senate with forest fires, an abhorrent murder or the decisions of another unpopular politician? Should non-profits and tax-exempts be allowed more/better free speech rights than commercial entities when they engage in the same manipulation techniques as those entities?
[0] See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan
You'll note that, while 'there are many restrictions,' there is no outright federal ban on tobacco advertising--were it possible, why not do it?
I also wonder if there's more to tobacco advertising then meets the eye: unlike alcohol manufacturers, Big Tobacco doesn't seem interested in challenging current restrictions to selling their product. And if they aren't interested, that says more about Big Tobacco than the First Amendment. But it's hard for me to say as I'm no expert on the tobacco industry.
American obsession with the 1st amendment is so odd. It doesn't allow for any reasonable discussion of nuance of speech.
Who defines 'reasonable'? As the federal government can't involve itself (which is at the heart of this so-called obsession,) the participants in the discussion will have to determine that for themselves. And if they can't agree on what is 'reasonable'?
restrictions on tobacco advertising
There are restrictions, a brief history of which can be found at Truth Initiative[0]. I wonder, though, if these restrictions remain in place because no one in Big Tobacco will challenge them? Especially if these same restrictions help to keep smaller players out of the market...
[0] https://truthinitiative.org/research-resources/tobacco-indus...
While I can't speak for the UK, the US has a small hurdle to bans on particular kinds of speech: the First Amendment. Add to that the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment (i.e. the Equal Protection Clause.) Alcohol producers have as much right to advertise as, say, someone selling chocolate bars (a 'sinful,' sugary food) or bacon (for all its alleged carcinogens) or prescription drugs (some of which have potentially lethal side-effects,) so it'd be tough to single them out for suppression. Not that Americans haven't tried using later constitutional amendments to prohibit things they don't like...
Why don't we discuss the core issue at hand, instead of trying to derail the discussion using "Cancel Culture" battlecries?
Perhaps because, to have a discussion, one has to have good-faith actors on both sides of the discussion? If one goes into the discussion with 'I'm going to stop playing sports for you if you DON'T stop playing this song' or 'I'm going to stop donating to athletics if you DO stop playing this song,' then there's no discussion to be had--we're merely down to which entrenched party has more power and sway.
While I see the merits of both sides in this debate, what's remarkable is how administrations at UT and most every other liberal arts college in the US have jettisoned their responsibilities as adults (and supposed intellectuals) to lead their students in the art of discussion over controversial issues. Especially when (1) that's what they're there for and (2) they hold most of the cards. This failure on their part is far worse than some squabble over a silly song.
Yes. And even with them around. All depends on the context and the willingness to get one's nose bopped.
I would, for example, encourage an actor to use overly offensive expletives, even repeating them ad nauseam in the presence of their fellow actors so they feel more comfortable using such words in a production dealing with racial strife, historical storytelling or what have you.
No word is so beyond the pale it must be Voldemorted.
You respond to the article (and to her) as if she's in need of absolution. If the article is true to Highsmith's character, I'd doubt she'd want that, or that she'd really care.
Writing (and reviews of that writing) aren't generally meant to absolve the writer of whatever sins they've committed. Writers are entertainers trying to make a living, and they are successful to the extent they are entertaining (and lucky.) If you find a writer entertaining, then the writer's done their job, nothing more. If you don't want to read an author because you despise them, that's on you. No absolution required.
misinformation is itself an assault on free speech.
Misinformation is a type of free speech. Whether purposeful (medical experts lying as to whether we should wear masks) or accidental (weather forecasting,) misinformation is merely a facet of freedom, to use wisely or not. Some instances are made illegal (e.g. in a stock exchange,) whereas most instances are seen as harmless (Santa Claus) or used to prevent greater harm (this shot will only hurt a little, Louise.) What's healthy is to reserve a bit of skepticism towards the information you get till you can confirm it is 'truthful' or not.
They're [Parler] just too unsympathetic of a plaintiff, imho.
I don't know that sympathy has anything to do with the merits of their case.[1][2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/law/2012/jun/27/aclu-assist-kkk-...
*edit--formatting