HN user
>So, I suppose you would describe yourself as being absolutely in favor of unrestricted free speech. Nothing is off-limits. All shall be discussed.
Yup.
>Now, what happens when you mix this attitude with a self-moderating system?
/r/AskScience
You can't make horrible opinions less horrible by making them invisible.
oh god I hate writing arguments from authority but... oh wait.
I'm only fighting an argument from authority.
Hah. I actually don't have to say anything.
But while I'm here, .;'';.
It's a troll face.
downvote me more pls.
>Do you mean that the victim-blaming is what these people actually believe and therefore it's a form of "truth"
That's obvious to the point of uselessness. I think we're on the same page re: victim-blaming being a big problem. I don't dismiss any of the comments that talk about victim-blaming.
The only thing I'm really pushing for is: this conversation should happen. And it is, between you and me.
The psychologist you cite I myself cited. The point of discussing anything is that no discussions lead to more rape.
Unless you're afraid.
If you're afraid that real discussion will cause more rape, and that the sacrifice of real understanding is worth pretending that that more rape doesn't exist.
Because that's the guarantee.
That's what that meh-ish psychologist proved.
We will not forget. Because there's nothing we're not afraid to know.
Are you saying you can't comprehend what I was trying to mean?
Your second paragraph is exactly the attitude that I despise. I don't care what your intent is: the effect is you want to hide what people really think.
There are no tools to handle that discussion. And that doesn't mean it shouldn't happen. And that means we'll find the tools for it.
Clueless.
edit: I feel like I'm in the midst of the argument that HN doesn't want. And I both don't want it and do want it in the same breath.
HN doesn't have the self-examination reddit does. It just doesn't. HN manages it by careful changes to its ruleset.
Reddit manages it by having an incredibly uncontrolled diverse ecosystem of recursively examinative subreddits.
And while I admire HN's adherence to quality, I will endure downvote after downvote unto hellban in order to defy our stodginess.
You lose something when you cross that wall.
you're the only one in this thread that knows chaos. So fuck you. :D
edit: ok well, to the point of expressing it. orthodoxy. he's the only one that was willing to fight orthodoxy.
because my thread had its bearings in the absurd and often wrong orthodoxy of reddit.
You're flat-out wrong. The word "necessary" has so many connotations that you can't control it.
Necessary means that it happens whether or not you want it to.
Necessary hurts.
And it's ineffective. If you have to say it's about opinion, you've already lost. I know that there are opinions that state that victim-blaming is a terrible thing.
I even believe it.
But we couldn't have this conversation unless this, _this itself_ was a reaction to the telling of truth.
You haven't said anything that has attacked my point.
I think what I'm saying is that you're upset about a thing that is a necessary reaction to the telling of truth.
The worst things are often a truth that needs to be heard.
You are writing from a position of fear. That people can express something that shouldn't be heard.
You can't fight the truth. And you can't fight the open expression of it.
The really difficult part, which is what my post was trying to explain; the really difficult part is actually _creating_ the open expression of truth.
Because you have to have a mix between real identity and the mask of anonymous.
>Actually Quora is better than that (for me) in that it's a double hit on the hype on both Q&A and social.
well said. fuck Quora, as the OP suggested.
The best place to ask questions from the article like "What is the best way to hide an affair"--as if Quora could ever manage an honest discussion like that--is reddit.
Of course, you couldn't ask the question just like that. It'd have to be more genuine, a post on /r/AskReddit like:
"People who have had affairs: How did they happen?"
Reddit has the kind of simultaneous anonymity and validity to look at things in [1] a very accurate way.
>Apparently my doing so made you angry.
no, your ineptitude made him contemptuous.
>Apparently you resent seeing points made.
assume at least minimum competence on behalf of your audience
yeah I deserve downvotes for this, but I can't abide overconfident naivete, too brittle to take a punch
This is exactly why I think SEO is going to go extinct.
What I've heard, and this is almost worse than anecdotal evidence, is that HFT helps stocks converge on their true 'value' or 'equilibrium' much faster.
This could, of course, be utter bullocks, and I have no way of tracking down the source, but it's at least an interesting idea.
>I guess I just come at this from a different angle. I never really felt that I was entitled to media that I didn't produce myself.
I never felt that an organization had the right to prevent me from accessing a piece of our culture because they have a piece of paper.
Copyright as it exists today transfers ownership of culture from artists to corporation; subsequent bartering of ownership means that the price _you_ want to pay goes nowhere near those what made it.
It is a travesty that Apple was _bragging_ that the Beatles music was in the iTunes store, as if that was some accomplishment of openness instead of lawyerly bickering.
Which is all to say: it isn't the paying for it that makes people oppose copyright. It's who we'd have to pay.
>SVN's model is both simpler than stated here, but also much more complex to reason about.
Well, sure, but if I understand his intent it's to demonstrate that Git's not hugely superior in clarity to freaking SVN.
I don't think he's defending SVN, though I'd only be completely sure of that if he mentioned hg at some point.
It's newsworthy because (I suspect) many of us think we're watching the pop of a bubble.
At least, that's what I'm thinking.
Crash imminent.
I give you a hamburger.
lesswrong?
You've just repeated more or less exactly what you initially said in this thread. This probably indicates that you're not making enough effort to understand why people are saying what they're saying.
Yes, it also indicates, perhaps, that people aren't really understanding _you_. But if you find yourself repeating the same button, you're still not doing any additional work in the conversation.
Going back to your initial post:
>How does one determine whether Foucault's statements are true or not?
Thinking about them. Talking about them with others. All of the obvious answers.
>At any rate, why should I accept them?
You should accept them _conditionally_--i.e., not necessarily incorporate them into your actual beliefs--because if you want to have conversations with the loads of people that take Foucault seriously, _you will have to play nice_.
All the dude said was that he really felt Foucault was important. You pretty much just disagree with him, which is, you know, fine; but instead of saying "I find Foucault to be less useful for such-and-such a reason"--a statement I suspect you cannot construct because you actually don't know anything about Foucault--you are pointedly and obviously resisting the idea that Foucault could have any value.
You seem to be making two contradictory points that both miss the spirit of what I was saying.
Certainly there are fields that are intentionally obfuscated and impenetrable. That doesn't mean the manner in which they are tangled is not outside comprehensibility, as your simple constructed example demonstrates.
The spirit of what I was saying is, if lots of people are talking about Smilism, then if you want to have a conversation with those people you will have to examine Smilism on its own turf.
No one's saying you have to play with other people, but if you do, you better play nice.
On the other hand, people that wish to spread or communicate their ideas are well motivated to translate them into other peoples' terms. So it's not that I'm some VIP, it's that--for instance--Democrats want to explain Obama's health bill in clear but simple terms.
Now, with Foucault, there is less motivation to do so. Partly because Philosophy is one of those fields in which thinkers can benefit from obfuscation, and partly because Philosophy is one of those fields that relies on the self-motivation of its students.
There's a difference between questioning something having taken the time to understand it on its own terms and questioning something because it hasn't gotten around to expressing itself in yours.
"Code" to you is "explicit" to the target demographic culture. I'd argue that you are not in that culture--and though I wouldn't say you're being racist (and actually looking back it's _you_ that used the word racist first!), I would say that your criticism is coming from outside the culture.
As someone whose initial reaction was "God why?" I stand corrected--that's an excellent use for this project.
See, I'd still buy this scummy dirtbag of an excuse for a human being a beer. ;)
In my experience "the rules of social engagement" are as often used to entangle and obstruct as they are to create civility. Think of "foot-in-the-door" phenomenon.
Sometimes rudeness is respect, especially if it's an honest communication.
Jobs needed an on-time supplier, and it was arguably worth the cost of a legal battle in order to get one.
As others have said, though, it spawns imitators that think "Steve berated his employees, so I can too."
well, that's the fun of specifics, innit?