Comment by matwood
6 years ago
> I wish more people would genuinely listen to those they disagree with.
I had a bit of this discussion on HN not long ago. I love to debate and hear ideas from those I disagree with. But, that's not what people are often doing today. They are using your statement to appeal to others to listen and accept their clearly racist ideas or provable wrong, anti-science ideas.
IMO, it's intellectually dishonest and a debate I have a hard time continuing.
> I love to debate and hear ideas from those I disagree with
The right may take the cake as far as hypocrisy goes in general, but the one thing that pisses me off the most about the left is their lip service to open-mindedness. I often wonder if they do in fact believe it themselves.
> They are using your statement to appeal to others to listen and accept their clearly racist ideas or provable wrong, anti-science ideas
With the continuously widening scope of what could be considered "racist" or "anti-science", I suppose there won't be much left to debate soon enough.
I don't know if you are implying that I'm from the left. I'm not either left or right, although as the right has moved righter I guess I have become relatively more left by staying in the middle :)
> With the continuously widening scope of what could be considered "racist" or "anti-science"
I agree this is a danger. But in my original comment, I'm referring to basics. Evidence has mounted that masks work, yet people still physically fight over wearing one. Evidence has mounted (IMO overwhelmingly) that HCQ does not work and is even dangerous, yet people keep saying that's all they need to survive COVID. Then there are the anti-vaxxers. It's a concern that even after a vaccine is found, it's possible not enough people will even get the vaccine to reach herd immunity[1].
[1] https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/05/04/a-majority-of-vaccine...
IMHO, the left has moved at least as far left as the right has moved to the right. The polarization has increased markedly. The other change is the vast increase in the speed of interaction and the number of vocal, anonymous individuals involved. There’s no time for reflection anymore.
Regarding HCQ, it’s only useful in combination with zinc, and only useful before hospitalization. The studies often cited seem to studiously ignore this. Given those caveats, there have been many successes.
2 replies →
> They are using your statement to appeal to others to listen and accept their clearly racist ideas or provable wrong, anti-science ideas.
“Yes clearly other people are stupid. The only ideas that should be exposed to the public are my own ideas. People other than myself apparently don’t have functioning brains, or they would all think what I think. So instead I must fight to have all opposing ideas erased.”
Not even close. People have to start with a shared foundation to have a discussion. Agreeing that 1+1=2 is a start. How about agreeing that the earth is round? Agreeing that critiquing research, and gasp changing our minds when the evidence mounts is the goal. Let's pick a weirdly controversial topic - masks. Evidence is mounting/has mounted that masks work, yet people want to fight over wearing one.
They want to fight over wearing one because they don't want to bow to their tribal enemies. It doesn't actually matter whether the masks work or not.
That's what it means to truly disagree with someone- to hate them.
Your policy is still the one that brought us down this path, and will (or has) plunge the western public into a debilitating purity spiral, as the overton windows shrinks and more and more viewpoints become 'clearly x-ist' or 'provably wrong', according to the crowd.
Good! Let it all burn.
Could you explain what you mean by true disagreement with someone is equivalent to hating them?
From the gp comment: >They are using your statement to appeal to others to listen and accept their clearly racist ideas or provable wrong, anti-science ideas.
The people he's talking about are beyond the pale. He's fine disagreeing with people, he even likes to have his point of view challenged- it's just that these people are a step too far; they're not just wrong- they're evil.
An answer is: I've found the people you ACTUALLY disagree with. Insofar as you can be said to hate anyone, it's the people you would gladly exterminate- and feel good doing so. Disagreement with someone on a matter of import automatically causes some small amount of dislike for them. You can still like someone overall! But if they're a great person, except e.g. they think abortion should be illegal, you'll still think less of them than you would have otherwise. My argument is that this dislike scales with how much you disagree with someone; and so, all else being equal, the people you hate most are the ones you disagree with the most strongly- to the point that a will awakes in you to engage against them in righteous wrath.
You see it in the twitter mobs and the witch hunts of old: If people decided to crucify someone, say by going after their livelihood- if, somehow, they thought that was the best way to improve the world- they should do it with their eyes down, shaking their heads, crying "If only it didn't have to come to this- but if we didn't do this, you would have caused even more pain than we. This course of action is a tragedy; but any other would have been worse. Forgive us, but for the good of the nation, you have to die."
They don't- they go after people with glee. It's fun, it's exhilarating; it's a fox-hunt. You can read it in people's testimonials about being part of a twitter job-lynchmob: Everyone enjoys it till they're the one on the chopping block!
Real Disagreement, as I would call it, is that kind that honestly provokes the aforementioned emotion: the desire to see someone destitute and homeless, if not dead, and the frame of mind where you could look at the result with pride. I'd call that hate.
(You can hate people for other reasons, of course.)
> They are using your statement to appeal to others to listen and accept their clearly racist ideas or provable wrong, anti-science ideas.
I don’t think anyone is appealing to others to listen to their racist, anti-science ideas so much as demanding that they be accepted and if not a mob may be sent after them. I wish it were only “appeals to listen”.
Yeah whenever people on here allude to 'what you can't say' it usually boils down to the same few very specific ideas, none of which are particularly secret, original or new. Hell, if you're a tenured professor, billionaire or anyone in a position of power whining about 'what you can't say' I find it hard to take you seriously.
People are getting fired and publicly shamed for statements and actions made one, two decades ago. It’s entirely reasonable to be afraid of speaking something acceptable but unpopular today out of fear that it will be unacceptable tomorrow.
This is a good point. Historical context can be important. You see these issues with people who have been in the public for a very long time (often politicians).
We also saw this with the ok sign where people were digging up pictures of people from years ago and somehow connecting them to using racism through the ok sign. It's challenging for a person who isn't on top of every news story to navigate this time.
Even if they're not too afraid for themselves, they might be for other people in more tenuous positions than them.
Ah, I get it. In a way, the Pioneer Fund is more of a charity.